Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 16:06, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 10:30:16AM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > The one flaw in this argument and all of those which say basically 
> > > "services is the answer" is that it only works if you produce crappy
> > > software which needs servicing.

But Larry, the flaw in _your_ argument is that you think it needs to
'work' -- for you or for anyone else in the IT industry.

It doesn't. It needs to work for the consumer -- if software becomes a
commodity, it's all got to the point where it's perfect and nobody's
willing to pay for anything any more, then perhaps we software engineers
go the way of the coal miner -- but the world won't end, and neither
will a voice from on high declare that it all has to stop because of the
poor hungry programmers.

> I think I'm going to give up soon (much to relief of the list) because I
> keep getting the same sorts of answers which make sense from a small
> custom shop point of view but are simply broken from a company point of
> view.

Yeah -- and the real world is broken from a coal-mining-company point of
view too.... I agree with your observation but your point is not
entirely clear.

If the observed trend is actually real, and if it continues, the
'company point of view' may cease to exist along with the companies
which used to hold it, while the custom shops may remain.

That doesn't make the observers wrong; merely perhaps a little nervous.

> Your model is fine, there is nothing wrong with it but there isn't a lot
> right with it either.  You can't really grow your business under that 
> model.

I don't disagree with this statement, but I don't see its relevance.
What inference can you make from this? 

Are you asserting that the trend toward commoditisation of software
isn't real -- that companies are _not_ becoming less inclined to pay to
license proprietary software when there is a Free alternative which they
can use instead? Or merely that it makes you unhappy?

> Instead of coming back at me with the premise of "well, I'm eating so my
> model is OK" how about coming back with a plan that says "Here's how we
> make an open source based business put Microsoft out of business".  That's
> reality.  You are just playing around on the edges, there is nothing 
> wrong with that, but until you have a viable plan that competes with the
> big boys let's stop kidding ourselves, ok?

Why should an open source based business do that? Why does someone
_need_ to make money out of Free Software in order for it to survive? 

I don't think we disagree on anything much apart from our goals in life.
You are making money from proprietary software; I am observing that this
business model seems to be slowly getting less viable because Free
Software is making consumers less inclined to pay up-front for software,
although it will certainly remain viable for a number of years yet.

I don't need to make suggestions for an _alternative_ business model for
you, and you don't need to agree with me.

If you disagree with my observation, that's fine -- but that doesn't
seem to be the part to which you're objecting, which is why I'm slightly
confused.

-- 
dwmw2