Open Source vs. Commercial

Hi,

Very often I see debates evolving around the quality of Open Source software, and the economics that surround it. There are two arguments that are repeatedly used to attack the Open Source model - that it can't produce high quality software, and that it destroys the economy of software. Both arguments are wrong.


1. Quality

It's rather easy to prove that Open Source projects can produce extremely high quality software - just download some programs and see for yourself: Linux, The Gimp, Shareaza, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Firebird, AbiWord, Gnumeric, Miranda (multi-protocol IM), FileZilla (FTP client), SpamBayes (client-side spam filter), Mozilla Firefox & Thunderbird, 7-zip (archiver), and the list can go on and on.

Each of those programs can compete with many of the commercial offerings, and many of them do compete with the best of the commercial products. Those are just client side examples.

If we look at the server side, we'll see that Open Source software virtually runs the Internet: most web servers, mail servers, DNS servers, FTP servers, etc. - run Open Source software. The commercial offerings so far proved to be inferior, at least in terms of security and reliability, to the Open Source counterparts.

Let's also take a look at the "developer side". The GCC family of compilers is as advanced as any commercial compiler. PHP, Python, Ruby and other scripting languages are can outperform (not just in terms of speed) many commercial alternatives. There are several powerful VCS (CVS, Subversion, Monotone, Darcs, and others) that boast proven quality and reliability, that few if any Commercial packages can match. Also there are good Open Source IDEs, linkers, syntax checkers, editors, source formatters, code libraries, you name it.

Sure there are also excellent Commercial software products, that are better than any Open Source alternative.

What all this means is that quality does not depend on the economic model, but on other factors: motivation, interest, who knows and who cares. The fact is that both models produce good software, and both models can produce software that dominates their respective market segments.


2. Economy of Open Source.

Some people, and one in particular on Borland newsgroups, consistently claim that since Open Source software is also Free, it will destroy the software market and render all professional programmers unemployed. This argument is sometimes disguised as Free or Open Source = Communism and decline, Commercial = Capitalism and prosperity.

(Note: Open Source software isn't the same as Free software. Open Source only means that the source can be distributed, but it doesn't mean that it should be distributed for free. You can check this for yourself by reading the FAQs on gnu.org, fsf.orf, etc. Anyway let's stick with the more common perception of Free software that is Open Source - FOSS).

Once again it's not very hard to prove how wrong are those arguments.

The assumption behind the argument that "FOSS = no software market" is that FOSS is made only by unpaid amateurs. There is a contradiction here. If they get paid - there's a software market and the argument is void. If they don't get paid, they only make software that interests them (and some argue that is of low quality). So who makes the "uninteresting" software for businesses? People who write software for money, so again there's a market and the argument is void. But let's keep digging.

The assumption that FOSS is made by amateurs, that take the food out of the mouths of professional programmers, is against plainly visible facts. Many, maybe most, serious FOSS developers are well paid for their work. However they are not necessarily paid by software companies, but by other interested parties.

IBM, for example, contributes a lot of existing code to FOSS, and employs dozens of programmers that produce FOSS code.

For many years IBM developed proprietary operating systems for their "big iron". The development cost a lot of money, which made the deal very expensive for the customers. Naturally with a proprietary and expensive environment there wasn't much of a market around IBM's environment (or any of the other proprietary systems). In the end the whole setup became too expensive and uncompetitive.

Today IBM shares the cost of developing an operating systems (Linux) with many other companies. Linux isn't really free - IBM customers pay for it when they buy IBM hardware. However, as IBM shares the cost of development with many others, IBM's cost per-customer is next to nothing.

Some will point out that there are many free riders - those who use Linux but don't buy hardware from IBM or any of the other companies that share the cost of developing Linux. Yes, there are, but over time the majority of the companies jump on the Linux bandwagon. They want to ensure Linux supports their hardware, or they want their own brand of Linux distribution, or they just want to avoid being called leeches.

From IBM's point of view, as long as the cost is lower than developing alone - the deal is good. It doesn't really matter that there are some free riders, because IBM still gets what it needs for a lower cost than ever before.

This is all very much market driven. There isn't any communist or socialist ideology at play. Rather, this is pure capitalism - hardware vendors share the cost of developing software that helps them sell hardware.

"Yes, but..."

What about software that's not used to promote hardware.

(Side note: Is there really such software? I've yet to see software that runs without hardware. Disk utilities work on... hard disks, backup programs need tape drives, games need faster video cards, office programs require keyboards and printers, etc. etc. Anyway...)

There's software that is used to promote services, other software, or information.

The most widely used (but unfortunately so) example is that software can be given free and money comes from support. Another example is free software with optional Commercial modules for GUI administration, etc. This is one model, but it only works on a big scale - a small percentage of customers buys the "extra". So this model is good only for "infrastructure" software such as operating systems, basic office applications and utilities.

However there are other models, that work regardless of the market size. For example free stock trading software, that in order to be useful requires a feed of quotes from the stock exchange. That feed is a service that costs. Another example is GIS (mapping) program that can be given for free, while data files (maps) are sold. The data isn't software and doesn't have to be free.

Why would a vendor develop software, give it for free, and then charge for service or data? Because that vendor isn't a software vendor but a service vendor. That vendor can share the cost of software development with other vendors in the same market segment, and all vendors can compete on what they really do best - provide stock quotes or create maps. Once again, Capitalistic forces.

"Yes, but..."

What about software that isn't tied to hardware and also isn't tied to any service or data?

What kind of programs fit this description? For example games or programs for image editing. I can argue that many of those programs can also be bundled with hardware or a service. But let's discuss those programs that can only generate money out of selling the program and nothing else. This is the essence of the original argument against FOSS and this is where the argument fails most miserably.

Axiom: FOSS doesn't take a single penny from the market.

Note that I used the term "market", not "software market". The software market doesn't work independently of the rest of the economy. Software is part of the computer market, which is part of the technology market, which is part of (...) which is part of The Market. Yeah sure but what does it mean?

It means that when there are free alternatives to Commercial software, the money isn't lost. The money simply won't be spent on that Commercial software, but on something else. Whatever that something else happens to be - food, clothing, entertainment, hardware - doesn't matter. The money still plays in the market and nothing is lost. So what will the poor programmers do? Produce or sell food, clothing, entertainment, hardware, whatever. There's money there as we've just seen!

Everyone, including those who object to FOSS, are happy when prices of food or gas drop. When you (anti-FOSS people) shop for a cheaper product, don't you think about those poor souls who - because of you - will earn less and may not have enough to make a decent living? And won't you be really happy to get free gas or free groceries?

This sheds light on an interesting point. Those people who claim that FOSS is communist or socialist, they are the real communists. They try to protect the salaries of programmers (or revenues of software companies), against the forces of the general market. Those anti-FOSS people are great capitalists when they have to spend money - they want the best product for the lowest price. But they are extremely communist when it comes to *someone else* having to spend money on their software.

Open source is very much like growing your own vegetables, and exchanging them with your neighbours that grow other vegetables. Sure, if this practice becomes widespread then it will reduce the need for farm grown vegetables, and may hurt farmers. But it's not communism, and it's not bad or wrong for the vegetables or for the people who grow and eat them.

I'll also present this "lost market" point from the opposite angle. Let's take something that is free today, and make it commercial to create a profitable market for it. For example - air.

Suppose air isn't free, so each and every person has to pay for the air they breath. This will create a huge market for air, won't it? How wonderful! we created a huge market with lots of money flowing around, and everyone must be happy because of all this new business. Really? Where all the money will come from? That money will be taken from other markets - food, clothing, entertainment, hardware and... software!

Finally, the software market isn't sacred. If there are people who produce software for their own fun and give it for free, then there is no need for similar Commercial software. There's nothing wrong or bad about it. There will always be a market for other software - that sells hardware, that sells services, or that is tailored to specific needs.

Conclusion:

FOSS is simply a free exchange of work in the form of program code. Free exchange is one of the cornerstones of free economy.

The effect of FOSS on Commercial software, is that it changes the economics of software. No value is lost. Money is redirected from some software markets to other software markets or to non-software markets. Any attempt to prevent this market-driven change is anti-free-economy and anti-capitalist.

I believe many people who argue against FOSS know and understand all this. So why do they argue against FOSS?
Because they're afraid of change.


Here come the flames.

EZ.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Open Source vs. Commercial
    ... > Very often I see debates evolving around the quality of Open Source ... Economy of Open Source. ... > software market and render all professional programmers unemployed. ... > money, so again there's a market and the argument is void. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: information suppression by universities
    ... They then find that that University white papers are not open source ... some folks decided that that research money ... Indian software people as they state american programmers do niot come ... "market" decide has now also disapeared as we nationalise/take over ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: information suppression by universities
    ... They then find that that University white papers are not open source ... some folks decided that that research money ... Indian software people as they state american programmers do niot come ... All this because we moved away from letting the existing market ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: information suppression by universities
    ... They then find that that University white papers are not open source ... some folks decided that that research money ... Indian software people as they state american programmers do niot come ... All this because we moved away from letting the existing market ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: Req: (Free) Embedded Platforms for Education
    ... Chris Hills a écrit: ... Free OR open source? ... I just wondered if he was looking for Free, low cost or FOSS ... When it comes to developing real world applications $that bring money$ I agree it is more useful to have more complex tools that can optimize the production. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)