- On the future of open source
- Banking on Open Source in Europe
- Mudblood open source
- E-trade on Open Source
- Big list of open source applications
- Need an App to run on Linux?
- Linux on the desktop...how do we cross the chasm?
- Economic drivers for Linux on the desktop
- Putting Open-Source to Work in Mobile Application Development
- The semasiology and onomasiology of open source (r0ml redux)
January 31, 2006 | Comments: (0)
SearchOpenSource has a good interview with me on the future of open source. I prefer when the media whitewashes my comments, because I sound much more intelligent that way. :-)
But here I am, in all my unvarnished ignorance. Some gems:
"I might be naive on Microsoft -- there are pockets within it that are as belligerently against open source as they ever were -- but a majority of people there have a fairly nuanced view of open source. Microsoft is not always right with its perspective of software, but if the open source community tried to wall itself off and be the pizza-eating late night developers club, it could only have so much relevance."and this on the near-term outlook for open source startups
"I finally think we are on the cusp of a mission critical, widely adopted enterprise open source application. Another great thing I see is that companies -- like LucidEra -- [are] applying to be part of the OSBC [startup] showcase[, companies that] have never been heard of before. A year ago I could say I knew every single company that was coming to the conference.Varnish, please! The synopsis is this: we're seeing better management teams, better products, and better business models in open source. Ironically, as this wave rises, just being open source won't be enough. Companies will have to offer compelling technology, too.Also, more and more open source applications will be developed for every layer of the software stack by much better companies. Enterprises will think of open source as their primary way of doing business. Right now it is still nipping at the heels of traditional software, but soon companies will have to have a pretty darn good reason why they are not doing business in an open source fashion."
It's a great time to be buying and selling open source software.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 31, 2006 02:30 PM
January 31, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Banking on Open Source in Europe
Our man in Europe, Matthew Langham (aka Silent Penguin) contributes this piece on the state of open source in Germany.
Banking on Open Source
Last week, I attended the "Open Source meets business" conference in Nuremberg, Germany. To my knowledge this was the first conference to be held in Germany with a major focus on the business perspectives of Open Source.
After attending OSBC in San Francisco last year, I was especially interested in seeing how this conference and the views of the German corporations would match or compare to what I had heard at OSBC.
I was very surprised to find so many "managers" talking openly about their use of Open Source at the 2005 OSBC. This was different to my experience at the same time in Germany, where Open Source hadn't yet reached the CxO level.
Well, things have certainly changed in the last year.
The Nuremberg conference was split into 6 parallel industry focussed tracks. In the financial institutions track, high-profile speakers from Deutsche Bank, Noris Bank, HVB and Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein outlined how Open Source has become a normal part of their IT strategies. Most of the speakers said that Open Source is now treated no differently from proprietary solutions when it comes to the evaluation of what should be used for a particular solution. They also stressed the point that the licensing cost (or lack of) is not a killer argument for large banks, as the costs of running and maintaining the solution are in the end far higher.
Why are financial institutions moving to Open Source? The arguments given in the conference were no big surprise to anyone who has been involved in Open Source for the last few years: freedom of choice, being able to adapt and change the software, support for standards, flexibility, better quality through the open development process and the possibility of community involvement - to name a few.
The last advantage was a major discussion point in the evening panel discussion of the financial track. Listening to the various speakers, it was clear that there are currently two distinct groups. On the one side, the institutions that try to play some active role in the Open Source community and on the other side the institutions who are pleased to be able to profit from Open Source, but who consider themselves to be outside the community. This group of financial institutions voiced their expectations of how "the community should get its act together and make Open Source more enterprise ready". Or as one of the speakers put it: "We want to run our IT infrastructure as economically as possible - we're not interested in ideological discussions".
All the speakers were positive towards Open Source yet they were quick to point out that Open Source software and its "vendors" must be able to stand up to the strict criteria the institutions have for selecting their suppliers and supplies.
In particular, financial institutions in Germany expect any supplier of Open Source services to take over full responsibility for the used Open Source components and be able to provide the necessary experts within a few hours of any bug report. One German bank is currently generating 8 million Euros of business per day with a solution based mainly on Open Source components. It is easy to imagine why they might not like the idea of having to email the mailing-list if the system grinds to a halt.
German financial institutions are traditionally very restrictive about the software they use and very demanding on what they expect from the respective "solution owner". It is therefore another sign of the Open Source times to see how openly they are now discussing their use of Open Source.
On a side note, the conference had a very strong emphasis on the "Business" part of the title from an organizational standpoint. For example, nearly everyone of the 400 or so attendees wore a suit and the evening reception was put on by the Bavarian State in the Rittersaal (Knights' Hall) of the famous Nuremberg Castle.
I will be heading over to this year's OSBC in a couple of weeks and eager to compare notes from this side of the pond.
-------
Matthew Langham is the Technical Director of the Open Source Group at S&N AG, Paderborn, Germany. He blogs as The Silent Penguin.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 31, 2006 10:57 AM
January 31, 2006 | Comments: (0)
I talked with a prominent open source developer - Gianugo Rabellino of Apache/Cocoon fame - today, getting his feedback on the business models of Red Hat, Alfresco, MySQL, SugarCRM, JBoss, and others. He made it clear that the open source development community (if it, in fact, exists) strongly prefers pureplay open source projects, rather than "mudblood" open source companies.
No surprises there.
I then spoke to a group of architects (quite senior) from Fortune 500 companies at a recent OSDL advisory meeting. I asked them the same question: do you care if your software is open and, if so, how open is open? Almost universally, I was told that everything should be 100% open (and they then gave some good reasons as to how this would influence their decisions). They even said they'd pay for it, but I didn't believe them on that one, human nature being what it is. :-)
What wasn't clear to me in either conversation is how to quantify community involvement. None of the companies above made the pureblood cut, and yet all are making healthy revenues. Is this because each is a sell-out? Profitable sell-outs, but sell-outs nonetheless?
His suggestions?
- Hire a prominent open source developer. Google did this with Greg Stein (and Chris DiBona). Novell did it by acquiring Ximian (with Nat and Miguel as part of the package). I'm not convinced that these or other developer-hires did much for the top lines of these companies, but certainly Nat's and Miguel's involvement with Novell gave it a revived freshness (which now only real revenues can sustain).
- Actively participate in relevant open source communities. Alfresco, for one, has been doing this, but I think we could be doing better. And maybe MySQL could have benefited from more active InnoDB involvement...? :-) I know that RightNow actively contributes code to the HtDig project, as well as bug fixes to MySQL, too. Is this enough to make these companies "pure?"
- Open up all of one's source code. No "baitware," he said. So, no RHEL vs. Fedora, Community vs. Enterprise, etc. This sounds great in principle, and I admit to being biased toward openness in software, but I'm not convinced that the developer community that Red Hat lost by moving to the RHEL/Fedora split was not more than made up by the committed developers and customers it gained as a result.
And so, the question: does community matter? Or, rather, does the pureblood development community matter?
As I've written before, of the top 50 contributors to SugarCRM's development community, 95% are SugarCRM partners. Are they tapping into the pureblood open source developers? Maybe not. Are they tapping into an audience that matters and actively contributes? Yes.
Despite my apparent assurance on the matter, I'm anything but convinced by my arguments. If you have any ideas on how open "open source" should be, please ping me.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 31, 2006 08:22 AM
January 30, 2006 | Comments: (0)
eWeek is running a great interview with E-trade VP of Architecture Lee Thompson on how they brought open source into their enormous computing environment.
To say that E-Trade Financial has embraced open source is putting it mildly. The financial services firm's open-source journey began in 2001, when it replaced several of its Sun Microsystems Solaris-based servers with IBM x86 Linux-based systems.E-Trade saved millions of dollars annually in the process, and has extended its open-source interests to middleware and even the use of the community development process as a model for its own internal development.
E-trade CIO Josh Levine retired earlier this year, but I was fortunate to have him speak at an event back in June 2005. Really interesting stuff they have been doing.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 30, 2006 10:38 AM
January 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Big list of open source applications
Matt and I are in Scottsdale, AZ for a meeting and we stumbled on these lists of open source applications that can potentially replace proprietary apps.
Wikipedia List of Open Source Apps
Use at your own risk ;>
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 26, 2006 04:37 PM
January 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Novell launched a survey where you can request the applications you deem most important to be ported to Linux. The results so far are not too surprising.
Top 10 Applications (last 21 days)
1. Quickbooks
2. Autocad
3. Photoshop
4. Itunes
5. Dreamweaver
6. Visio
7. Lotus Notes
8. Quicken
9. Macromedia Studio
10. Act!
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 26, 2006 09:25 AM
January 25, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Linux on the desktop...how do we cross the chasm?
It seems like we all agree that Linux on the desktop is getting closer and that there are economic forces driving adoption. Commenters Bryan and Don both cite Ubuntu as a good option as a desktop and GuruJ mentioned the lack of quality office apps, games, and financial software as inhibitors to adoption.
One very positive aspect of these comments is that they closely mirror the findings and sentiments that were uncovered during the Portland Project meeting in December. I think this ultimately leads me to 2 questions:
1. How do we convince ISVs port their relevant office, game and financial applications to Linux?
2. What is the next step in refining UI and user functionality for existing desktop Linux distros?
These questions aside, I am starting to become a big believer in the idea that browser based applications could make the entire OS discussion completely irrelevant for the consumer desktop. It's hard to see that occurring immediately for business users-take for example the new JotSpot Tracker...it's pretty damn good, meeting at least 80% functionality for what casual users really need from Excel. The important aspect of this is that once applications are not tied to the OS, Linux becomes a more obvious choice as opposition to paying the Windows Tax. It will be interesting to see if Windows Live will continue to only work with Windows now that MS has killed Mac IE.
I am traveling this whole week, sorry for delays in approving comments.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 25, 2006 10:03 PM
January 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Economic drivers for Linux on the desktop
I have repeatedly read and been told that desktop Linux has no economic driver from the vendor perspective. That is, Linux-oriented software companies such as RedHat and Novell don't see much potential revenue from the desktop and therefore aren't putting forth the amount effort needed. The same has been said about ISVs like Adobe-that the market share is too small and porting apps to Linux would be too expensive.
This morning, while lamenting the second Windows spyware incident in a week, I came to the realization that this vision of desktop Linux as a goodwill effort is wrong. There is an economic driver for desktop Linux. It will drive more sales of associated products and services from the vendor that offers a full range of Linux choices.
If one commercial vendor, say RedHat or IBM offered me a usable Linux desktop along with a suite of business productivity applications I would standardize on that vendors solutions across the board; servers, desktops, you name it. That's a strategy that leads to big market share. In fact, that's exactly what Microsoft has done, just in the reverse order.
Windows moved up the stack from desktop to server, while Linux is trying to go downwards from server to desktop. But it's the same concept. Get your whole setup from one vendor to ease integration and such.
I might be missing something but I can't see why this strategy is not being pursued by commercial vendors. Open source products will initially require a more packaged approach for large scale adoption. Cobbling applications together is just not realistic for most IT departments.
Anyone able to shed light on this?
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 24, 2006 09:46 AM
January 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Putting Open-Source to Work in Mobile Application Development
Fabrizio from Funambol has a piece in this week's Computerworld on open source in mobile application development.
What I've found is that managers and developers wanting to use open-source tools for mobile applications are looking for some basic guidelines to ensure that they're getting the most leverage out of open-source software. Here are some recommendations for determining this for yourself:1. Look for a large, active community surrounding the technology and product.
2. Check for comprehensive, proper documentation.
3. Test for scalability.
4-7--click for full article
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 24, 2006 09:15 AM
January 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The semasiology and onomasiology of open source (r0ml redux)
At the recent SDForum executive open source event, the morning panel included a discussion of the meaning of "open source business." Tim was the first to push back on the traditional definition of an open source business, suggesting that Amazon.com, Google, and others who integrate open source into their businesses should (or, at least, could) be considered open source businesses. And Microsoft, because it contributes code, can be, too. Simon Phipps of Sun, for his part, noted that they have six (or was it seven?) categories of open source companies, one of which includes the Web 2.0 company that merely uses open source.
This is a way of conducting semasiology (r0ml redux): Start with an expression or word, in this case "open source," and try to figure out what we mean by it.
Now, despite the fact that I've been guilty of "mashing up" the definition of open source with Web 2.0-ish companies (like RightNow), I think I was wrong to do so. If we stretch the definition of open source business that far, then its meaning (and utility) becomes meaningless (and drops to zero). We use language to identify, among other things, and "open source business" means essentially nothing if it's used to define everything.
What we need to do, as a complement to semasiology, is engage onomasiology, wherein we start with the meaning of the word or expression and then look for the proper way to name it. (Else, Tim will end up squeezing the Web 2.0 conference with OSCON, and OSCON 2.0 and a lot less money. :-)
Open source implies more than mere use or integration of open source code into one's closed product. To me, "open source" implies liberty with the source, and not simply cost savings by free riding on open source projects. The right expression for this sort of Web 2.0 integration is "Borrowed source" or "Layer IP on top of the source code and forget about it". "Open source" really isn't a good fit, because the code isn't open (Google isn't releasing its Linux modifications, last time I checked) and isn't fundamental to how the customer acquires and interacts with the product.
Now, following the OSI open source definition, I'd like to propose a meaningful definition based on the words themselves and what we've traditionally associated with open source. At its core, the OSI definition speaks to the value of source code access and redistribution. I'd therefore define an open source company as one that has distribution, modification, and evolution of (open access) source code core to its business model and to its financial success.
Does this mean that all of its code must be open? No. Does it mean that it can't be a Web 2.0 company that heavily borrows open source code? No.
What it means is that there must be an integral, active component of contributing back source code in a publicly-accessible manner. That give-and-take of source code must be fundamental to the product and the distribution model - it cannot be an afterthought or pro bono. Or, to put it more succinctly (as Scott Dietzen says), an open source company "is a company that's business model fundamentally depends on delivering open source software."
Agreed.
However, let's also be clear that the fact that one is open source is not a magic elixir that somehow makes the business special. It just means that we've accurately defined it. Whether it's a dog of a business that deserves to implode is another matter entirely....(I only say this because I think we need to be careful to not use "open source" as a label that conveys intrinsic value. I like open source, but I don't like all open source projects or companies simply because they're open source.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 23, 2006 10:15 AM
January 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft: Yes our software will crash just as well on old hardware as new
Microsoft's Bill Hilf has just emerged from Redmond's Linux lab with this news, according to eWeek (drum roll please):
...Windows performed as well as Linux on legacy hardware when installed and run out-of-the-box, [which tests] were done in part to give Microsoft the data it needed to effectively "put to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything."Given that I can hardly run XP (if I were to foolishly do so - just upgrading MSN Messenger on my Mac nearly killed my PowerBook) on a machine that I bought last week, much less a few years ago, I have a hard time believing Bill's lab tests. My own experience cuts against those tests.
But the larger question is, even if true, who cares? The ironic thing about all this free software is that few to none in software's largest markets actually repurpose old hardware for it. Yes, you could, but people buy new Dells to run the latest Linux - they generally don't resurrect their old machines for the task.
Bill points out in the article that this research was primarily done for the developing world, where people do repurpose old hardware. OK. I'll buy that. But Microsoft has other big reasons for losing deals (and, soon, market share) in the developing world. Having old hardware crash with Windows won't save them. :-)
Posted by Matt Asay on January 23, 2006 01:17 AM
January 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Who are the "top VCs" when it comes to "getting" open source (and, more importantly, giving to it?). I tried compiling a list this morning (see below), and here's what I came up with. I initially just went from memory as to who has invested in what. Wanting to be slightly more scientific, however, I decided to employ some (sketchy) metrics:
To be on the list, the partner must have invested in at least two credible open source* companies.
It's actually amazing what happens when you apply this simple test. Many of the VCs that I think of as open source savvy (see bottom) have yet to achieve the volume necessary to make this list. Of course, this may be a good thing: quality over quantity. So, don't read this as a be all, end all list of who's cool and who's a loser in the open source venture world. Some of the people who didn't make the "Most active" list are great friends of mine. (But maybe that makes them a loser, even if their lack of open source investment activity doesn't? :-)
As noted, the list above is not comprehensive of all the smart open source VCs out there - just the most active. Some that I've had close interaction with, from whom I'd gladly take money (Again, this list is not comprehensive - it's early AM here in London, and I'm sure I'm forgetting people):
Ray Lane (Kleiner Perkins - SpikeSource), David Skok (Matrix - JBoss), Bob Lisbonne (Matrix - AppTran, LucidEra. Bob ran the browser business at Netscape and managed its metamorphosis into Mozilla. If AppTran were open source, he'd be on the list), Irwin Gross (Worldview - ActiveGrid), and Josh Stein (DFJ - SugarCRM).
*Disclaimer: Since no one knows anymore what "open source company" means, given that we've stretched the definition to cover any company that has ever thought the words "open" and "source" in the same paragraph, I'm applying my definition. I'll tell you what it is in a follow-on post.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 22, 2006 09:52 PM
January 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
CIO Magazine: IT spending on the rise
Gary Beach and CIO Magazine are reporting [PDF] that 69.8% of CIOs are planning IT spending increases in 2006. That's great news for the tech industry, with an average 7.8% increase across the board.
Of course, stats being what they are, CIO Insight (a competitor to CIO Magazine) has its own survey of 115 senior information technology executives, and is reporting a 1.3 percent decline in IT spending in 2006 among companies with more than $500 million in sales. For those under $500 million, the survey reveals a 6% increase...and IDC and Gartner are both predicting 5% increases. Why the disparities? Baseline suggests that it may have to do with disparities in how IT is now being planned and budgeted.
Regardless of how you spin it, as with government (and seemingly everyone else), spending generally is on the rise. And never before has so much of it been allocated toward open source.
Where will they spend it? Primarily for security (50.9%), storage systems (49.7%) and lots of computer hardware (47.3%), according to CIO Magazine. (Also see this early 2005 data from Baseline Magazine.
Looks good. And, as I said, it's never looked better for open source.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 22, 2006 08:53 PM
January 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Building vs. buying open source communities
Leaving aside the question as to whether one actually can buy community (see my separate post), I don't believe it's an easy task under the best of circumstances, for the same reason that most acquisitions fail to deliver their promised benefits. Combining corporate/community cultures is tremendously difficult. Combining the business models these entail is only slightly less so.
I'm an Arsenal supporter. I despise Chelsea. Part of the reason I dislike Chelsea is that it's clearly a "buy community" kind of soccer (football) club. I think the Russian mafia (ahem, Roman Abromovich) has injected nearly $500 million into the club, buying up an immensely deep bench of talented players. Oh, and I think Chelsea's coach, Jose Mourinho, is overly smug and needs to be swatted from time to time. :-)
Arsene Wenger, Arsenal's coach, has a dramatically different approach. He tends to buy potential, not experienced players. (Unfortunately, this season the result has been less than spectacular.) He has molded some of the game's great players (like Thierry Henry and Patrick Vieira), starting with them when all they showed was promise. This transfer window, instead of signing a strong player like Michael Ballack he signed two relative unknowns and one 16-year old with a lot of promise.
Arsenal builds. Chelsea buys.
Chelsea, for their part, have hardly lost a match in two years. Arsenal, after trouncing everyone two years ago, has been struggling. So Chelsea's model must be the best, right?
I don't think so. Remember the Lakers (with Shaq, Kobe, Karl Malone, Gary Payton, etc.)? The Yankees? Etc.? Each spent gobs of money on the best players, but couldn't assimilate them to make a winning team.
The open source world is no different, to my mind. In 2000, I joined embedded Linux vendor Lineo. We acquired six companies in one month (no, that's not a typo), growing from 40 to 440 in that month. We never recovered from the rapid growth (precipitated by our bankers suggesting that we had to grow fast in order to command a hefty valuation on the IPO market...right....). I learned then, and again at Novell (Ximian + SUSE), that integrating cultures and business models is supremely difficult. Some (like Jose Mourinho in soccer) are good at it. But most fail.
For new open source companies, I think the best bet is to grow a community organically. In my experience, this is what some of the smartest technology companies have done. Dan Frye and Jon Prial - both of whom collaborated on creating IBM's Linux strategy way back when - started developers working on Apache and Linux well before (two years or more) they expected to effectively monetize those projects (or, really, expected much of anything, monetary or not). SugarCRM, MySQL, Alfresco, and JBoss have shown that there is both an art and a science to commercial community building, and that it is possible and profitable.
Other companies like JasperSoft have shown that it's possible to acquire an open source project and successfully build a business around it. But I still think this is the harder task. It involves proselytizing among existing project users and developers, trying to convince them your intentions are good, rather than starting fresh. There is certainly an appeal in having a ready-made community around an acquired project, but I don't believe that keeping such a community happy is either automatic or easy.
Good technology, coupled with good marketing, will attract a community. This is true of the open and closed-source worlds. (Just look at Microsoft - they've created an incredible community of developers and users.) I just happen to think it's easier and more useful when the community is formed around an open project.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 22, 2006 07:18 AM
January 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Victorian marriage and open source
I just finished Thomas Harding's Jude the Obscure, and am now plowing through his Far from the Madding Crowd. Though not necessarily central to either book, I've been intrigued by the courtship process various characters go through in them. In most instances, marriage was less a matter of love and affection, and more a matter of financial security.
For example, Crowd's central character, Bathsheba Everdene, is initially wooed by the farmer-turned-sheepherder Gabriel Oaks in this manner:
"I can make you happy," said he.... "You shall have a piano in a year or two - farmers' wives are getting to have pianos now....And [you can] have one of those little ten-pound gigs for market - and nice flowers, and birds - cocks and hens I mean, because they be useful," continued Gabriel, feeling balanced between poetry and practicality. (30)Mr. Boldwood, the next suitor, then tries his luck on her with this argument:
"You shall have no cares - be worried by no household affairs, and live quite at ease, Miss Everdene. The dairy superintendence shall be done by a man - I can afford it well - you shall never have so much as to look out of doors at haymaking time...." (136)Very romantic, these Victorians (especially as the men in question hadn't talked to Miss Everdene more than 5-10 minutes before making their offer :-).
I think that we sometimes treat successful open source projects this way. VCs ply project leads with promises of enterprise glory and IPO wealth. Corporations try to lure developers with the promise of temporal comfort - a comfy salary and expanded influence.
Maybe this is a good thing. I'm certainly a fan of commercial open source, as I believe that the more money developers can make from open source development, the more of such development there will be. But I wonder if the "marital offer" corporations and capital makes to the development community is sometimes a bit crass and, well, material.
I'm not convinced, anyway, that the "buy" decision is the right one in the "build versus buy" open source choice. Bringing a "free" project under the auspices of a commercial enterprise will necessarily change it. Sometimes for the better (I think, for example, the Linux kernel has benefited from enterprises investing heavily in the people involved), but sometimes for the worse (which is why it's great that open communities like Ubuntu can still persist in the somewhat commercial Linux community). For example, OpenOffice's corporate community tends to make it as bland as Microsoft Office...without the file compatibility and other essential features to truly compete with Microsoft Office. It would be better to be managed by a true community...as would Java.
Regardless of normative concerns, it's extremely difficult to weld an open source project onto the existing framework of a closed-source company. I lived though this at Novell. I think the company did remarkably well...but it still chewed up nearly two years of the company's life. Buying a community is not for the faint of heart.
No matter how much physical security you can offer that community, it may not be worth the change to that community. Something to consider.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 22, 2006 07:05 AM
January 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
At the SDForum event last week, Larry Augustin and Tim O'Reilly compared the P&L sheets of Red Hat and Borland (following r0ml's OSCON presentation), and asked, "Are they really any different?" (Very similar to the question Larry explored at OSBC San Francisco.) r0ml's answer at OSCON was that they really weren't - Borland calls it a "license" and Red Hat calls it a "subscription," but the two are functionally equivalent. The SDForum panel seemed content with this.
The problem is, they're not equivalent. One constitutes a sprint, and the other a marathon, as I pointed out.
Some believe that open source offers them a quick path to riches. Just open up the code, sit back, watch the downloads kick in, and the cash register start ringing! For any who have actually done it, however, the truth is somewhat different. It requires as much - if not more - effort to make an open source business model work than it does a proprietary one.
And a lot more patience. Open source businesses increasingly use a subscription model, which requires a monthly (or daily) recognition of revenues, contrary to the license sale, which allows upfront recognition.
So, in open source, you book revenues today but must wait to reinvest them in the business (adding employees, upgrading equipment, etc.). In the "Catholic" world of the upfront, proprietary license, on the other hand, gratification is immediate.
Hence, open source is the marathon and closed source is the sprint.
A sprint is nice if you want to get the run over with quickly. Sell to one customer, and move on to the next. If you're the customer, of course, this model stinks, but who cares about customers?
Open source companies have to. Their model requires it. At Alfresco I get paid a little each day by Informa, Boise Cascade, and our other customers. I have to earn that by providing super attentive service, a superior and evolving product, etc. At no point can a I (or Sugar, or MySQL, or Red Hat, etc.) rest on my laurels, celebrate the sale, and forget my customer. (Someone at the SDForum event suggested that Red Hat only has a 50% renewal rate, which I had heard before. If this is true, I think it doesn't necessarily speak ill of the model but rather points to an area that Red Hat can continue to improve upon. Their explosive revenue growth suggests that they're doing just fine in that department.)
So, it's a marathon. Not always pleasant (as I learned running my first marathon a few weeks back - my right knee still won't forgive me), but better for customers and better for vendors, too, once they're on track and on pace. It forces us to think about the long haul. And, not to take the analogy too far, but whereas in a sprint you can dope up (take shortcuts) to boost performance, there really is no way to improve one's marathon ability...except by putting in a lot of miles. There's no shortcut in a 26.2-mile race.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 22, 2006 06:43 AM
January 21, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft's own internal open source community
Now, don't start crying on me, but this one will probably smack as being overly sentimental. Guilty as charged.
More often than I'd like, I'm forced to acknowledge "mea culpa" and reverse course on something I've said. I've always been more optimistic than most on Microsoft's chances to get open source right, but I occasionally think I've met exceptions to the rule.
I thought I had discovered one in Sam Ramji. He's part of Microsoft's Emerging Business Team, and I was fortunate to share a table with him at the recent SDForum event. Like virtually everyone I've met at Microsoft, Sam was articulate (sophistic is the word I sometimes apply to Microsoft friends like Jason :-), intelligent, and not afraid to back down from an argument.
We had plenty at our breakout session. (I learned after the fact that I wasn't supposed to blog this session. Again, mea culpa. Since Google doesn't forget anything, there's no point in trying to erase what I wrote. But I can at least acknowledge when I was wrong.) In the case of Sam, I misunderstood both what he said and what he meant.
The discussion went round the table about whether open source is a follower or a leader. I've taken both positions in the past, but generally believe that commercial open source obviates community open source's (not really a true distinction there, but I assume you know what I mean) definitional need to follow.
(Open source "in the wild" relies on a sufficient body of developers with interest and aptitude for a given technology, which happens once the groundwork has been laid by someone else. So, for example, you would not likely have an open source database until databases were well understood and a large enough group of developers could combine around creating one. I suppose one developer could innovate something on their own, but the money required to build up a mass of skilled developers around a technology largely precludes it, in my opinion.))
Anyway, I took Sam's comments to be pejorative on this, but after exchanging emails with him, I think I was wrong. Sam was no more antagonistic toward open source than I am. In fact, his background (lots of open source in it) makes him as likely as I am to be friendly about open source, and understanding of it.
Sam's response to my misunderstanding? He sought me out and tried to understand why I had misunderstood him. This has universally been the response from Microsofties that I've known. It's one reason that I put Microsoft in a very different class than most companies threatened by open source. The company started out as belligerent toward open source (and, indeed, sometimes this old tendency flares up), but quickly learned that this was the wrong way to become part of the community.
I'm actually quite bullish that Microsoft will continue to figure it out. Heresy, I know, but I'm not religious about software. I haven't met anyone there yet that hasn't shown enough humility to truly become part of the community (then again, I've yet to meet Ballmer or Gates ;-). If Tim thinks Microsoft could well be defined as an "open source company" because of their code contributions, I can agree, too. But I think the greater test is the quality of the people in the company. In this department, Microsoft has a very deep bench.
Sorry for misunderstanding you, Sam. Thank you for reaching out to me. And thanks for being a credit to your employer. Sorry I said otherwise. I was wrong.
And now I will go back to killing your SharePoint business. :-)
Posted by Matt Asay on January 21, 2006 09:27 AM
January 19, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Tim O'Reilly: What business does Red Hat think it's in?
I'm sitting in SDForum's Open Source in the Enterprise executive summit. Great so far, with a strong turnout.
Tim O'Reilly just asked a provocative question, and has repeated it several times. It is:
What business does Red Hat think it's in?Tim's rejoinder to his own question is, "They're an integrator, not a technology company. They should be Dell, not Microsoft."
He has a point. Red Hat has become what it is by integrating and delivering the various components of the Linux operating system. An intriguing and (mostly) valid argument. It doesn't take into account Red Hat's new R&D push, but it does capture what Red Hat does well: deliver an excellent community-driven product.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 19, 2006 10:09 AM
January 19, 2006 | Comments: (0)
A chance to get patent law right for another 225 years
My good friend Patrick has an op-ed in today's SF Chronicle outlining the burden that the patent process has created.
While the pace and the complexity of innovation has increased tremendously over the past 50 years, our system for granting and protecting the rights of those responsible for such innovations -- the U.S. patent system -- has not kept pace. As a result, the sheer volume of patents, their complexity and the legal issues they raise have begun to strain the entire intellectual-property ecosystem. This, in turn, has created a drag on speed-to-market and may cause a cooling effect on innovation.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 19, 2006 08:53 AM
January 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Google, Amazon, and Yahoo! point enterprise developers towards "lightweight" architecture
ActiveGrid CEO Peter Yared has been very vocal in his views about Java's fossilized ways. We've invited Peter to write a series of pieces making the case for lightweight architecture.
Google, Amazon, and Yahoo! point enterprise developers towards "lightweight" architecture
Quite a few folks are beginnning to realize that most big websites, including Yahoo!, Google and Amazon.com, run on lightweight architecture. To define lightweight architecture, it is helpful to define its opposite:
Heavyweight architecture means you are running complicated infrastructure software like J2EE with complicated API's on a small cluster of expensive SMP machines.
Lightweight architecture means you are running straightforward, usually open source, software stacks with service oriented API's on large clusters of commodity machines.
There are four common ways of achieving a lightweight architecture. Three of them are open source solutions, and the fourth is Microsoft's attempt:
1. LAMP
As many of you know LAMP is my favorite lightweight stack. LAMP runs a vast majority of the massively scalable websites out there, and is also the favorite deployment stack for most of the "Web 2.0" crowd, including Friendster, Facebook, MySpace, and Flickr. Both IBM and Oracle announced support for PHP in 2005, and there has been an upswing in enterprise adoption of the LAMP stack.
2. Open Source Java
A lot of Java developers are moving away from full blown J2EE to lightweight Java, which includes Tomcat, Spring, and Hibernate, among other open source Java projects. There are some big websites running this architecture, including E*TRADE and EBay. Lightweight Java is built on open source projects, which are a very different set of Java APIs than J2EE and are not officially sanctioned by Sun or the JCP.
3. Ruby on Rails
RoR has gotten quite a bit of traction with the intelligentsia but none yet from enterprise customers or massively scalable websites. They only just shipped version 1.0 of the Rails framework in December and some people are complaining because it is a code generator. However, it is a cool scripting language, a nice framework and a nice addition to the lightweight trend.
4. Skinny .Net
Companies like JetBlue and Charles Schwab are starting to make very selective use of .Net so that it is more lightweight. Windows was always meant to run on commodity machines, but it is challenging to get it to run on large clusters or grids of commodity machines. On the other hand, .Net offers the best tools in the business and great XML support.
Each of these four approaches differs from the other, but they are remarkably consistent when contrasted with the old way of doing things. Clearly lightweight architecture is building in momentum and helps you do some very big things that can't be accomplished with older technology!
Peter Yared can be reached via email pyared@activegrid.com
NOTE:
Are you an open source bigshot interested in guest posting on Open Resource? Email us openresource at infoworld dot com
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 18, 2006 09:43 PM
January 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft's open source (partner) ecosystem
Today, it's just JBoss that is a formal partner with Microsoft. (And maybe MySQL? I don't know....) But tomorrow, many more?
So says Bill Hilf, Heir of Matusow (no, it's not quite the same as being the Heir of Slytherin ;-) in this eWeek article:
Expect to see a lot more interoperability work between Microsoft Corp. and some of its open-source competitors over the next year-like the agreement struck with JBoss Inc. last year-as well as more participation by the Redmond, Wash., software maker in preventing interoperability problems earlier in its product cycle and providing potential fixes when issues arise.I'm intrigued. But given that I represent the death of Microsoft's SharePoint business, perhaps they won't roll out the red carpet to Alfresco? :-)"We have been successful in identifying popular open-source software applications that our customers are interested in using on the Microsoft Windows Server platform and working with those companies or projects to ensure that solution is well integrated," said Bill Hilf, the director of Platform Technology Strategy at Microsoft, and also the man who heads the company's Linux and open-source lab.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 18, 2006 01:48 PM
January 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Big company = big bureaucracy = big opportunity (for open source)
I've written before on the value open source brings in lowering the bar for trying out software. Today, I felt it painfully.
I had conversations with two (very) large companies, both of which wanted to do a trial of Alfresco's Enterprise product. Simple, right?
Well, no. It seems that the companies require a trial agreement to be signed. With one, they only sign on Mondays, so they have to wait a week to try it out (unless one of them wants to just download it and try it out - I won't tell :-). With the other, I was told it could be months before their Legal department would sign off on it - not because it's open source, but just because that's how they operate. I begged him to just download it and give it a spin, but he couldn't. So they're going to try out the hosted demo, but still....
Months?!?
We desperately need to rethink how we access, trial, and buy software. The old way just doesn't work.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 18, 2006 01:40 PM
January 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Rumor Mill: SpikeSource changing sales model
This post is based entirely on unsubstantiated rumor. Word on the street is that SpikeSource is making the move to a new channel focused strategy. I don't want to gloat, but I told you that the existing business model was not sustainable. Unfortunately, I don't see how a channel model would work either.
There is no channel when it comes to software services. SIs won't give up the revenue to another services partner, it's an inherent conflict. And while channel deals are great for distribution (HP with JBoss or MySQL) there is no precedent on how much revenue can be derived from such deals. SIs will just build their own stack, or get a complete solution, including the OS from a big player like RedHat.
People are hell-bent that open source is all about services, but take a look at the companies that are doing well and you'll see that they also have products. MySQL has a product, same with OpenLogic and ActiveGrid. You can only rely on services revenue when your products reach a level of market share that creates demand for services. Products lead to services, not vice-versa. This is exactly the reason why RedHat is doing so well.
I stand behind the notion that companies will end up paying for open source software and services from the vendor whose products they rely on. If I need certified LAMP, I'll buy from RedHat, if I need certified AMP-J I would buy from JBoss (if they offer it.) There are few to zero scenarios where I would buy support services from SpikeSource or SourceLabs.
Note: I don't know anyone at SpikeSource or SourceLabs, nor do I have any personal vendettas. This is simply an analysis of the business models.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 18, 2006 10:55 AM
January 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Red Hat, Max Weber, and the Spirit of Capitalism
My wife and I live in a "cute" neighborhood. Unfortunately, "cute" means "old Tudor-style houses [ours was built in 1941] that tend to be small and expensive." With four kids and me working from home, she was at the end of her tether and declared, "We've got to get into a bigger house!"
My response? "Well, that's very Catholic of you."
Now, lest you think I was engaging in religious baiting, I was merely making a reference back to Max Weber's seminal book, The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (That and I was just trying to antagonize her. :-) If you haven't read it, you should.
In it, Weber asserts that the Puritan/Protestant religion tended to fuel capitalism, and that Catholic beliefs tended to dampen the spirit of capitalism (though not the desire to make money, itself). From Wikipedia:
Weber shows that certain types of Protestantism favoured rational pursuit of economic gain and that worldly activities had been given positive spiritual and moral meaning. It was not the goal of those religious ideas, but rather a byproduct - the inherent logic of those doctrines and the advice based upon them both directly and indirectly encouraged planning and self-denial in the pursuit of economic gain.Whether valid or not, a truly interesting take on history and economics.Weber traced the origins of the Protestant ethic to the Reformation. In his opinion, under the Roman Catholic Church an individual could be assured of salvation by belief in the church's sacraments and the authority of its hierarchy. However, the Reformation had effectively removed such assurances for the average person....
In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Worldly success become one measure of salvation...[and]...Weber saw the fulfillment of the Protestant ethic...in Calvinistic forms of Christianity.
The "paradox" Weber found was, in simple terms:
The manner in which this paradox was resolved, Weber argued, was the investment of this money, which gave an extreme boost to nascent capitalism.
- According to the new Protestant religions, an individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much zeal as possible. A person living according to this worldview was more likely to accumulate money.
- However, according to the new religions (in particular, Calvinism), it was considered a sin to actually spend this money on personal luxuries or on religious icons. Also, charity was generally frowned on because a lack of worldly success was seen as a combination of laziness or divine disfavor.
How does this apply to open source? I remember having a conversation with several members of Red Hat's executive team about its business model, which thoughts were later echoed in a conversation I had with a Red Hat board member. Red Hat's business model very much is a "save now, recognize revenue and spend investment later" type of model.
And it is diametrically opposed to the traditional software business model: recognize huge license fees upfront and spend them with abandon. Red Hat (as well as other subscription-based businesses like Alfresco, MySQL, JBoss, and SugarCRM) may be able to book the full value of a deal upfront, but it actually recognizes the revenue on a daily basis thereafter (others, like Alfresco, still recognize revenue on a monthly basis). The value of the model is that, once it kicks in, it's extraordinarily powerful - a recurring, predictable revenue stream upon which the company can depend and invest against. But there's a lot of "Calvinistic" saving upfront to get the company to that point.
Furthermore (still beating the Red Hat drum), Red Hat does a fantastic job of using its Fedora project to "read the tea leaves" of what enterprises will want, and then delivering those in a stable, enterprise (RHEL) version down the road. As a result, the company was last to the 2.6 kernel game, among other things. It takes its time, makes its investment, and then releases the product. The result? It's one of the top-ranked companies in all of technology, and has a 97% approval rating with its customers. Save and invest now, spend later.
If you want to succeed in open source (or, really, in any business), this must be your mantra. There is no supernatural authority that will "save" your business. There is only the drudgery of working your tail off today, and banking that investment today, so that you can spend it on further drudgery tomorrow. Not very cheery, but the payoff is huge.
In closing, it's worth hearing Weber directly on this work ethic:
...[T]he summum bonum of this ethic, the earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life, is above all completely devoid of any eudaemonistic, not to say hedonistic, admixture. It is thought of so purely as an end in itself, that from the point of view of the happiness of, or utility to, the single individual, it appears entirely transcendental and absolutely irrational. Man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life. Economic acquisition is no longer subordinated to man as the means for the satisfaction of his material needs. This reversal of what we should call the natural relationship, so irrational from a naive point of view, is evidently as definitely a leading principle of capitalism as it is foreign to all peoples not under capitalistic influence. At the same time it expresses a type of feeling which is closely connected with certain religious ideas. If we thus ask, why should "money be made out of men", Benjamin Franklin himself, although he was a colourless deist, answers in his autobiography with a quotation from the Bible, which his strict Calvinistic father drummed into him again and again in his youth: "Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings" (Prov. xxii. 29). The earning of money within the modern economic order is, so long as it is done legally, the result and the expression of virtue and proficiency in a calling; and this virtue and proficiency are, as it is now not difficult to see, the real Alpha and Omega of Franklin's ethic, as expressed in the passages we have quoted, as well as in all his works without exception.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 18, 2006 08:58 AM
January 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
OK, so I haven't been the biggest Skype proponent thus far. I never believed that businesses would use it as a serious tool, or that average consumers would use it for communications.
Today, however, my IPEVO free.1 Skype phone came, and I've been having a great time trying it out with my Skype buddy list. 
(Many thanks to Om for pointing out this first Mac-friendly Skype phone. For those still relegated to Windows, there are several more options, which you can find on the Skype website.)
It's completely integrated into Skype, such that I can scroll through my buddy list, dial a call, etc. from my phone. The downside is that it's a USB phone, not wireless/cordless, but I'm sure this is something that will be overcome in the very near future.
In the meantime, I'm finally able to comfortably take an incoming Skype call, rather than scurrying for a headset. I'm looking forward to it.
(Note: I still think Skype and others that rely on someone else's network are going to get a wake-up call at some point. But for now, it's nice that its free. By the time it's not, it may well be worth paying for.)
Posted by Matt Asay on January 18, 2006 07:52 AM
January 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
HP may offer open source services-I say they should buy JBoss
News.com says that HP is "considering selling services designed to ease customer participation in the open-source programming community." While this is still open to interpretation (and marketing spin) I can't imagine how they anticipate this new service offering to generate revenue. I find it highly suspect that anyone will pay to give code back to the community. I suppose that developer hours are technically donated, but that doesn't really explain why they think that someone would pay to participate. In fact it's antithetical to the very notion of the open source development and community model.
One other important note in the article was in regards to HP's expanded partnership with JBoss. Let me stoke the PR fire a bit: HP should buy JBoss. JBoss would be a great acquisition for HP, providing software and services revenue from a large installed base.
HP needs to learn to make money from Linux and open source and move away from HP/UX. Owning the most prevalent Java App Server would be a great way to quickly gain customers who could be up-sold onto HP hardware. I refuse to believe that I am the only one who thinks that JBoss would be a great acquisition for several big systems/software vendors.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 17, 2006 08:13 PM
January 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
IDC Analyst Dan Kusnetzky joining Open-Xchange
Seems that long-time IDC analyst Dan K. is finally heading back out to the working world joining Open-Xchange. He has by far been the most influential analyst when it comes to the rise of Linux. Dan has been a good friend and a great analyst to work with and we wish him the best.
On the flipside, I am pretty shocked that this was the job he chose to take. I pretty much considered the product to be a dog. Maybe it's time for another look at Open-Xchange?
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 17, 2006 01:28 PM
January 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Infomercial: Alfresco's PHP support
I normally don't do this, but since I'm a little tired of hearing "Java is dead!" from Peter, and crew :-), I thought I should note that Alfresco just announced support for web scripting languages like PHP. We've actually always had this, but never advertised the fact. Basically, it means that developers don't have to learn Java to work with Alfresco. They can extend the system with the web scripting languages they know and love.
This, btw, is how all systems should be architected: let the core development team state its preference (in our case, Java) and write it as such. But also ensure that third parties who don't share this preference can modify and extend the system in the language of their choice.
Anyway, here's the press release (also see below for excerpts), and here's where you can download the PHP module.
Alfresco Announces PHP Development InterfaceSo, you can have your cake and eat it, too. That's the benefit of a clean, extensible architecture: you can be popular with the O'Reilly web scripting crowd as well as the Jonathan Schwartz Java crowd. :-)Jan 17, 2006
Leading Open Source ECM Platform and Leading Programming Language Integrated
LONDON-January 17, 2006-Alfresco Software Inc., the first provider of an open source enterprise content management solution, today announced that has integrated the open source programming language, PHP, into its development environment. This enables PHP developers to create new content-centric applications and dynamic web pages that access Alfresco....
"PHP has a long heritage in open source," said John Newton, chief technology officer, Alfresco Software, Inc. "?We wanted to provide an open platform for Enterprise Content Management for all languages and development environments. With the architecture we have adopted users can get the best of both worlds - the ease of development with PHP and the enterprise robustness of Java for open source ECM."
"The promise of Web Services is that developers can create sophisticated applications without having to recreate the underlying complex technologies such as content management. Alfresco Software is one of a growing number of companies that recognize the power of PHP to expose the power of their technology via Web Services," said Doron Gerstel, CEO at Zend Technologies, the originators of the PHP language. "Providing a PHP-API will enable their community to create tailored content management applications for vertical industries such as publishing, healthcare, or engineering. Zend is committed to collaborating with Alfresco and others to make PHP the most productive platform for creating applications that integrate such Web Services."
Posted by Matt Asay on January 17, 2006 10:36 AM
January 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The GPL version 3 draft is available on the Free Software Foundation site for public comment. Besides the current draft you can also read the rationale behind the changes and the drafting process.
From the preamble:
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.To protect your rights, we need to make requirements that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
For the developers' and author's protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, the GPL ensures that recipients are told that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.
Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden.
Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the special danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL makes it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 16, 2006 07:08 PM
January 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Red Hat: the mother of all business models
The biggest problem in open source today is that few know how to monetize it. There are great developers out there who will write free (as in freedom and price) software regardless of a profit motive, but they are the minority. These generous benefactors are not sufficient to fuel the continued rise of open source software.
So, we need more developers making more money to fuel...more development. But how? There are a few promising models (and the Open Source Business Conference is the best place to learn and develop new ones), and many more that are complete rubbish.
I'd like to focus on one, in particular, that I think is absolute genius: Red Hat's. Oddly enough, I can't think of a single other company that uses Red Hat's model, despite its evident success. I'm not sure why, except that I do think few understand the nuances of Red Hat's model. I'd therefore like to spend a few minutes trying to unpack exactly how Red Hat operates.
Red Hat's model is a product of necessity. The company had to figure out how to survive its lack of code ownership, and found a brilliant way to turn this apparent deficiency into a strength. In turn, this has allowed Red Hat to invest in innovation that all benefit from, but which benefits Red Hat particularly. (As a related side note, without a good business model, open source and innovation are at odds - a good business model will allow a company to heavily innovate, secure that it will be able to profit from such innovations as much as and more than its competitors.)
It's a bit like Arsenal allowing Thierry Henry (shown here pummeling Middlesborough in January 2006, 7-0) to play for opposing teams, knowing that the goals in Arsenal's favor will always outweigh those against it.
Here's how Red Hat's model works:
- Red Hat helps to drive Linux development, ensuring momentum and competitiveness for the open source project.
- Red Hat splits its Linux offerings into two camps: Enterprise (Red Hat Enterprise Linux - the one you'll see prominently displayed on the company's website) and Community (Fedora). Attention and energy is primarily focused on the product that will actually bring in revenues (RHEL), but Red Hat is careful to also nurture the development community, which will pay it little to nothing but which brings other, less tangible benefits.
- Red Hat tests and certifies RHEL to run on certain hardware, with certain software. Red Hat restricts access to this certified, supported RHEL - you can get the raw source for the uncertified RHEL, but not the compiled, ready-to-go binaries. Only paying customers get that. (Note: Red Hat recognizes that few to no large enterprises are going to depend on an unsupported, self-compiled distribution.)
- Red Hat ties support to its software - you cannot get and run the RHEL binary noted above without buying commensurate units of support. Red Hat ensures this through its ingenious subscription agreement. If you want the real Red Hat, you must pay - there's no effective way around it. (There are workarounds, but they're not worth the bother. Red Hat knows this, and mints money from the result.)
- Red Hat delivers updates (and ensures customers stay with it) through the Red Hat Network. Companies plug in, get updates, occasionally call for support, and make Red Hat an explosive, important open source company.
That's it, in a nutshell. The important things to remember are:
- Red Hat's model works because Linux is successful.
- Red Hat ensures Linux's success by investing heavily in it, and marketing it heavily.
- Red Hat does nothing to prevent would-be customers and developers from trying it out (quite the opposite).
- Red Hat makes it hard to impossible to get the compiled, binary version of its tested/supported/enterprise-ready software without paying it. (A recognition that while source is free, few actually want source, and even fewer pay for it.)
- Red Hat ensures an ongoing relationship (and payment channel) with its customers through a subscription agreement.
Sheer brilliance. Red Hat is able to deride competitors who have hybrid models while effectively having one itself, scoring marketing points and positioning itself as the one, true open source Linux vendor. Red Hat is able to lower the barriers to trying out its products without abandoning the ability to convince customers to pay upfront and ongoing support/license fees. Red Hat is able to make a truckload of money.
The only question at this point is, why aren't you using the Red Hat model, too?
Posted by Matt Asay on January 15, 2006 05:49 AM
January 13, 2006 | Comments: (0)
ComputerWorld: Desktop Linux: If we build it, will they come?
A piece I wrote for ComputerWorld just went live--Desktop Linux: If we build it, will they come?
Linux has made major inroads on servers and in data centers running both open-source and proprietary applications on millions of computers worldwide. We've recently seen the rise of Linux on mobile devices. But the Linux desktop remains elusive. We know it's out there, but it only now seems to be approaching the tipping point.
Contrary to what Matt says, desktop Linux has become usable. We just need the apps to catch up.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 13, 2006 05:38 PM
January 13, 2006 | Comments: (0)
John Mark in the garden of good and evil
John Mark has at least two things going for him. He likes soccer - a real sport - and he writes for a long time. (Now he just needs to start following real clubs...which means he'll have to look beyond the MLS. I've got a good team to share with you, John Mark....) His first salvo post-new LinuxWorld gig is mighty long. So long even I started skimming, and I read a lot of novels. :-)
John Mark makes some good points. (Evidently so, as even the august Nick Carr picks up JMW's tome and runs with it.) He makes them forcibly, though sometimes at the expense of accuracy. That's OK - I like good soundbites as much as the next guy, and I think John Mark has both substance and style. (Ever listen to Larry Lessig? Lots of substance, but sometimes he employs style to bridge some logical gaps, as we used to chide him for in class.)
The core of John Mark's argument is as simple as it is subject to debate: open source just is, and would have happened no matter Linus or RMS because it's just a symptom of the natural order of things: commodification. The Internet only exacerbates (or facilitates, if you will) this trend.
Various people (including me) have made this argument for several years. Open source is a weapon, a tool. It is an efficient distribution methodology. It is a way to undercut competitors (as IBM has done masterfully) and a way to enable customers to share in the development process.
But it's not necessarily the most innovation-inducing way to write software, as John Mark argues.
He says:
This continuously evolving collective knowledge base carries another consequence: speed of innovation. Because of the speed with which users, developers, and companies can post documentation, patches, or new software projects, the product life cycle has shortened considerably. Software vendors must work harder than ever to stay ahead of the floating software boats. This constant drive for innovation means that products released just yesterday lose value more quickly than before, due to future products already filling the software pipeline.I don't think it's true that the pace of innovation has increased - instead, I think the visibility into that innovation has improved.
And I certainly don't believe that product lifecycles have shortened. Those (like Red Hat) who tried to behave otherwise were told clearly by the market that it likes a nice and easy pace, thank you very much. Microsoft and the proprietary vendors could release as early and often as the open source vendors could, but recognized long ago that customers don't actually want this.
In some areas, like the 'Net, Google and other closed-source vendors have found that a perpetual beta mentality can work, illustrating that it isn't open source, per se, that speeds innovation, but rather that the Internet enables a fast, incremental product release schedule...if desirable. Generally, it is not. So, again, it's not that innovation has increased its pace, but rather that we have greater visibility into what innovation is happening, whether closed or open.
I also don't believe that open source is necessarily The Best Way to write software, contrary to what John Mark says. (I think it's far too soon to associate once-and-for-all superlatives to open source. Better? Sure. Best? I'm not yet ready to stop the evolution of software.) It simply may be the best way (so far) to ensure written software is fixed. (You see the Jamesian in me coming through - pragmatism.)
John Mark says:
With prices approaching zero, software developers have two choices when trying to win over users: (1) add features not available elsewhere, and (2) release the source code. There is no other currency of value that developers can extend to users. In fact, these two options are actually interrelated. A software developer trying to accomplish option 1 on his own will face a daunting task, whereas a developer who releases source code, assuming the project is viable, will have a ready supply of suggestions for improving the software and adding features. She will also have a cheap and fast means of distributing the software complexity around the world, with the implied deepening of the collective software knowledge base. This collective software knowledge base will pay dividends in the form of knowledgeable users and contributors.Well, maybe. I'd feel more comfortable with his opinion on this had he kept at it with GroundWork and proved the financial superiority of the model. :-)
I'm also not sure that John Mark's assumptions closely correlate to the reality of how open source projects work. Given some other comments John Mark makes in his article, I know he recognizes this. But he conveniently overlooks this in an effort to make a point stick.
This actually ties into an overly strong, and not quite accurate, statement that John Mark makes: "there is no open source community." This isn't true. There is an open source community. Lots of them, actually. Alfresco has one. So does SugarCRM. Etc. Open source is a community of small, sometimes niche-y communities. John Mark is right that there isn't any one open source community, but it's not true that there isn't one at all.
Again, John Mark knows this. He actually alludes to it in his argument, holding that those who build such communities around their projects will have competitive barriers to entry, as I've argued as well. Having said that, and I'm sure John Mark would agree, this kind of project/product user community phenomenon really isn't any different from what successful companies (like Microsoft) have always done. Maybe what John Mark should have said, then, is that open source is not a special kind of community, and it's not a monolithic community. I'd buy that.
Well, maybe I wouldn't. That's another problem I have with John Mark's argument, but one he promises to answer in a separate article. That is, he talks about how open source is a superior economic model, but he points to no concrete evidence that this is true. I had lunch with two fellow open source entrepreneurs today, and it was clear on both sides that there are lots of things that open source makes easier...and many (like making gobs of money) that it makes somewhat harder. Or, at least, different. I'm looking forward to his second article.
Despite these quibbles I have with John Mark's article, I'm glad he wrote it. We need more logic and reason in open source, and less dogma and blind faith. I assume it will be John Mark who takes over OSBC later this year - it's comforting to see the conference will be in good hands.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 13, 2006 05:33 PM
January 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The empiricist in me really likes Scalix
Julie Farris did me the honor of demo'ing the Scalix web client this morning. I've known about Scalix for years but, incredibly, really didn't know exactly what the company did. I knew it was a Linux-based email server, but didn't know that the company's web client meets and sometimes exceeds the sexy UI/functionality of Zimbra, Oddpost, etc.
Unlike other offerings, I really couldn't tell that I was in a browser, because they yank out the browser artifacts (most of them, anyway) so that there is no back button, address bar, etc. It's a very simple tweak, but important for making fat-client lovers like me feel comfortable. I also really liked the windowing system (very similar to CanyonBridge's offering, which I think is fantastic).
I guess this is ample reason to attend OSBC (you knew a self-congratulatory statement was coming, didn't you? :-). It's nice to talk about what open source can do, but OSBC is becoming the DEMO of open source applications and middleware. At this one, we'll be showing off 12 leading open source products/projects with the entire crowd (between keynotes) looking on. I'm hopeful that through public demos like this, my ignorance (and others') can be dispelled.
Up until I actually saw Julie demo Scalix, I didn't think much about the company, because (empiricist that I am) I couldn't see/feel/touch the software. Now that I've seen what it can do, I'm pushing Alfresco to actively consider it as an option for our email upgrade. I'm guessing that many of us are like this with open source - we like it in theory, but often don't have concrete examples of killer software to point to. I'm hoping that OSBC will become a forum for demonstrating that open source truly has arrived and is in some cases clearly superior to proprietary software.
Thanks, Julie!
Posted by Matt Asay on January 12, 2006 04:07 PM
January 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)
25 Reasons to Convert to Linux
The Linux Information Project just posted 25 reasons to convert to Linux. It's a nice canon of information for anyone who needs to convince their management.
I think my favorite is #5:
(5) There is little or no fear of major obsolescence, planned or otherwise, with Linux. This is because the UNIX architecture on which it is based has been exhaustively tested and refined for more than 35 years and has proven to be extremely efficient, robust and secure. Improvements continue at a rapid pace, but new versions remain basically compatible with the underlying UNIX architecture.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on January 12, 2006 03:48 PM
January 11, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The 451 Group gets community wrong
As conventional open source wisdom goes, the below citation from The 451 Group's December 2005 report, Cashing in on Open Source is about as perfect as you can get. Every open source developer will pat herself on the back as she reads it:
Both pure proprietary and feature-constrained models [i.e., company that has open and closed versions of a product which are not compatible] embody the unwarrantable assumption that your internal, paid developer community will consistently do a better job, over time, than their counterparts in the open source community. It's possible that they can, but on balance of the evidence presented to date, we doubt that they will.The problem I have with it is that it belies a belief in The Open Source Community, which is a bit like a belief in Santa Claus. There's some truth to both beliefs, but also a lot of untruths.
For one thing, there is no such thing as THE open source community. It's a community of communities. For another, most open source projects are either non-projects, non-functional (the vast majority of SourceForge "projects" are nothing but moribund signals of intent, as has been shown numerous times), or non-community (most SourceForge projects have just one developer, and the huge majority have fewer than five).
Right now, the biggest issue in software is how to attract a user/development community, and not how to appeal to THE open source community. That's why we're heavily focusing this February's Open Source Business Conference on the subject of community-building. And it's why The 451 Group's comment above is a bit too glib for my taste (and not in keeping with the normally concise and meaty analysis it normally dispenses).
Open source projects - every single one of them - rely on a small group of developers, with a wider body of bug fixers (but still quite small), and a comparatively large body of bug finders. This largest body is the user community. Successful open source companies and projects are those that find ways to grow this community, and not those who (vainly) try to attract significant external core development. Such development happens, but not very often. About as often as Santa Claus visits.
Posted by Matt Asay on January 11, 2006 01:38 PM
January 11, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The 451 Group: No $$ salvation in going open
There is a myth out there that open source offers a convenient way to save a dying company's proprietary product, or provides a way to head off the eventual bleeding dry of a successful closed-source product (like Oracle's database, for example). The 451 Group has news for you:
Nope. Sorry. Not going to happen.
In its Cashing in on Open Source report, they make the following point:
Pure plays commodifying new sectors and offering professional support may be profitable - some are remarkably so. Examples include the Linux distributors, JBoss and MySQL. Traditional companies, however, should not expect open source initiatives to