Slashdot Log In
Is Open Source Different In Europe Than In the US?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Sep 24, 2008 09:59 AM
from the i-hear-gravity-is-heavier-over-there-too dept.
from the i-hear-gravity-is-heavier-over-there-too dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The first Europe Open Source Think Tank just concluded and Larry Augustin posted some interesting observations on open source in Europe versus the US. Essentially, he says that users in Europe care more about the open source nature of a product than do US users. US users are just trying to save a buck while European users actually care about access to the source code. Do Slashdot readers observe the same thing? Are the reasons for using open source software different in other parts of the world as well?"
Related Stories
Submission: Is Open Source Different in Europe Than in the US? by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
For shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For shame (Score:5, Informative)
Primary reason for adopting Open Source:
-(Europe) Avoid vendor lock-in.
-(US) Cost.
Key driver of commercial Open source business creation:
-(Europe) Creation of a local software industry.
-(US) Venture capital/entrepreneur-driven to create big business and make money for investors.
Dual licensing business models.:
-(Europe) Not true open source. Proprietary business models using Open Source for PR and marketing.
-(US) Widely accepted as the most common Open Source business mode
Software sales model.:
-(Europe) Channel oriented: VARs and SIs.
-(US) Direct.
Open Source business models.:
-(Europe) Service and support subscription focused; 100% open source software.
-(US) Don't want to be in services business. The focus is on products, typically proprietary add-ons or an Enterprise Edition paired with an Open Source product edition.
Expectations around "Open Source" products:
-(Europe) All code is available under Open Source. There is often a community governance of community participation model.
-(US) Same, but not necessarily all products are available under an Open Source license. Commercially licensed versions of the products are commonly available. Projects are managed by a commercial vendor.
...and the best reason for using open source anywhere: Not having to worry about those pesky BSA raids [screaming-penguin.com]!
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Primary reason for adopting Open Source:
-(Europe) Avoid vendor lock-in.
-(US) Cost.
...because let's be brutally honest here: the US cares less about sending money to Redmond, Seattle than Europe does. For Europe it means a loss of value on the continent, but for the US the money stays 'at home', and contributes to local jobs, taxes, etc.
So yes, Europe cares about Open Source in a different way than the US. It might very well be the only way that serious software development in Europe can compete with the US...
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Interesting)
In all honesty being that I work for a Global company, Europe has I think a much higher quality of life. They are not rushed, they take their time and smell the roses. They have more free time as well and vacations. I am a geek as well and as a geek when I take vacation I typically end up looking into a new technology or exploring something I do not have the time for while working. However I get interruptions while I am on vacation from work as well.
Therefore, they take the time to look through the source code. Here in the US, we do not have the time, so basically we just buy something that gets done what we need to get done open source or not. Even if had the source code we wouldn't look at it. There are applications we have purchased in the company that we also purchase the source code for, however when we have problems we do not look at the source we call support, because we need an answer and we need it now.
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Insightful)
In America we call that Lazy, Elitists, who do not contribute positive to the overall society. (there is more to the world then just source code)
Your hardworking, salt of the earth capitalists have really contributed a lot of positive things to your society. Hmmm, USD 10 billion a day in Iraq or USD 700 billion to bail out Wall St etc but not a dime for affordale socialised medicine... give me lazy elitism any day!
Parent
Re:For shame Since you brough up $700B, well (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they should make DAMNED sure the FBI has the widest latitude in US HISTORY to sift out and bring charges against all those involved in the fraud the got us to this point. The execs involved should be tracked by biometrics and SSN and deprived every step of the way forward if they try to take on jobs (private or as "advisors" to the government entities that will have to dig us out of this morass) that make more than $100,000 a year involved in financial sector work. If they can come up with a $20,000,000 a year job shitting eggs, then good for them, but NOT another $20M + bonuses job in the financial, insurance, reinsurance, commodities, real (fake) estate or the similar industries. But, once identified as fraudsters, they need to be jailed, and i dare say, their assets taken from them and their families' usage/access. SOME of the execs might even deserve to be hanged by the neck or electrified for bilking the public, destabilizing the global economic engines, and lying and holding back on the true state of the "financial armageddon" we now face.
Sure, borrowers can fib or go NINJA/NINA (No Income, No Job/Assets// No Income/No Assets) route on the paperwork, an end up lying of misrepresenting information and facts, but THAT is what the lenders, underwriters, and other processors are supposed to weed out. So, as for blame weight, assign 25% fault to the poor schmo borrowers who CHASED that "merkun homeownership dream (only to witness it ever increasing in acquisition cost, and elusive unless they lie to get into that home...) But, many of the lenders/processors/verifiers were pressured workers or outright greedy assholes (and NEED to be vilified) who most likely felt:
"Well, if WE don't process these loans, then our competitors WILL. So, that means we lose out on commissions, bonuses, and quarterly reportable income/revenues. So, FUCK IT! Hells Bells! Full speed ahead!"
Now, they want to be bailed out cuz loans and the like supposedly are the oil/lubricant of the US market. They should let wall street crash and re-set itself. *IIII* am in debt, and ***IIII**** do NOT get the chance to have some of that $700 BILLION to "reset" my poor, money-mismanaging ass.
THINK, everyone, what $700 B could do:
- rebuild a number of US cities
- pay for the unemployment (yes, social network support) benefits of those who (not the fucking execs) are SURELY going to be laid of without a golden parachute
- pay for the education costs of those currently in college (how many other countries spending less on military matters actually fully subsidize their education-seeking populations, and are the better for it?)
-pay for costs of those who dropped out of college to work to pay off school loans, only to be screwed by the failed economy, take on lower-income jobs that yield too little income to (without resorting to criminal activity) service those federal school loans
- fund the startup ventures of people such as myself who have low income, no assets, no FFF (friends, fools families to co-sign), and no one we can trust to NOT screw us out of our entrepreneurial ideas. We could be linked up with SBA SCORE advisors, mentored, kept on track, and become the new employers more deserving of the $700B than the bastards and bitches who greedily brought the US and rest of the world to the brink of disaster.
These crooked administration and financial jerks are all too keen to exhort "let the market self-correct" but all to willing see corporate welfare bailouts help THEM and their cronies, but not the public. The "experts" LIED about the extent of the previous bailout costs, and not these assholes in DC want a blank check and no accountability on an initial checking account of $700B. If bush gets what he and his cronies want, then probably $300B of that will go to the execs, a few mortgage companies, and the rest will be so ineffectual as to have us seeing 8 months from now another bailout package of $1.5 TRILLION being asked for.
Find them, charge them, de-asset them, and ban their return to financial markets, then jail them, and execute some of them as examples.
(steps down from soap box)
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but it's not elitist for the middle class to be paid fair value for their work, and to be able to enjoy the fruits of their own labours.
This idea that your primary function in society is to make other people richer (because this is what you're doing when you work harder for the same pay) is distinctly North American. Europeans don't look down on us because they think we're inherently inferior, they look down on us because we go around with "sucker" written on our heads, and let a small, elite minority take advantage of us.
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Interesting)
As to the 'elitist' charge. The US economy is great for the financial elite, but miserly with respect to anyone with a median salary or lower. In a lab in Europe, the lab assistants got food subsidies at the excellent cafeteria. The lab ran a nice Mercedes bus that picked them up from each of the nearby villages - a nice perk given the cost of gas. So, who is favoring the elite - France or the US?
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Funny)
In America we call that Lazy, Elitists, who do not contribute positive to the overall society.
In Europe we call that bad punctuation.
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very impressive, how your leaders brainwashed you into confusing lazyness with the freedom of leisure instead of being a slave of a company, and seeing elitism (like in, being the best) as something bad.
Well... It's your life. If you want to be a Joe Slave, so be it.
But as soon as those that take advantage of you in this way endanger us too, you're putting me in danger by supporting them. And that's where I have a problem with you.
Luckily I see it as the best, to help you, instead of punishing you.
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Insightful)
A loss of money to the continent? Who the hell thinks of Europe as a single financial entity. Where the money is going is the last thing that anyone ever thinks about.
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Your first paragraph makes no sense. If it were true, then things would be the other way round - Europe would be worried a lot more about the cost of software than vendor lock in. As it is, if this article is correct it means that Americans don't care about feeding money into their economy, they only want stuff to be free and don't care as much if there is vendor lock-in. While Europeans are happy to pay money to American companies as long as it means they have a choice.
It's also pretty funny that you somehow think American software is magically superior to any equivalent software coded in Europe, unless that software is open source? Games perhaps aren't "serious software" but they tend to require more serious coding skills than developing other commercial client-side software, and there are plenty of talented European and Asian development houses. I don't know a lot of commercial office software, but how about SAGE [wikipedia.org]?
Sure, most big software houses have their headquarters in the US, and Europe is the home of Linux and a lot of good open source apps. But look back again at your quote, and you could see that is because the US cares about money, and Europe cares about encouraging innovation and giving people good products. It is not necessarily because Europeans somehow can't code good code unless they are doing it for free.
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:4, Interesting)
While your post "sounds" reasonable it makes no sense.
No european company cares where the money is going to (to another european service or product provider or to an US one).
Only (if at all) the governments might think about issues like that. Most big european companies are multi national anyway.
There is still 100 times more money going to Microsoft, Oracle, IBM than to any OS software (or that is saved by OS software).
I think one big reason behind OS in Europe is: 90% of commercial inhouse software development is done in Java and Python, and not in C#. While OS software like iBatis exists for .NET and also for Java there is still 100 times more high quality Java software (see apache.org) than there is anything for .NET.
With tools like Eclipse and the numerous plugins you simply start working. For no cost, for no vendor lock in. Everything that is used to drive your data (hibernate, iBatis) everything dealing with XML, everything regarding internet (HTTP, Mail, FTP) is available as OSS.
Everything regarding MDMA or MDSD (Andromeda / Open Architecture Ware) is OOS ...
The next prime factor is: human resources. You always find some one who has a deep experience in a specific OSS product / tool.
Looking at my ivy repository: I see roughly 120 OSS java libraries used. About 5 from other vendors in my industry, and about 5 from commercial vendors like Oracle.
Why should I pay for a commercial PDF formatting library when an OSS version with a more thought out and easier to learn API exists?
The software we write simply would not have any chance to be written in a reasonable amount of time if we would not use OSS libraries. Where is the closed source alternative to ivy or if you prefer the other one, maven? Where is it for ant? Jython? Grovvy? And well, strictly speaking Java was not OSS when we started using it, but without Swing our software would be written in Qt likely ...
angel'o'sphere
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. Their employees are in Washington state, where your business is supposed to pay income tax because there's no payroll tax. But they put their financial offices in (IIRC) Colorado, so their profits are filed in a state with a payroll tax on the (no) employees, but no income tax.
This way Microsoft dodges paying any more than a bare minimum of taxes, while still enjoying the taxpayer-bought benefits of Washington state.
Privatize the profits, socialize the costs. It's the American way!
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Informative)
Also from TFA:
This isn't a scientific survey, but reflects opinions I heard consistently from multiple people over the two days of the conference:
I have a salt shaker if you'd like a grain with that.
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:4, Insightful)
This just in: Americans like money
Seriously, why is this surprising to anyone? In the US of A it's always been about the bottom line, at least as far back as the railroads. We're a country which, culturally speaking, wants to get something for nothing, be totally financially independent and not have to work particularly hard to either get on top or stay there once we get there.
So naturally, the first thing we look at is cost - we can pay $1500 per seat for all of our software, or get free alternatives for about half the stuff. We're wired like that. Maybe we're not all so cavalier about it or proud of the idea, but, uh, let's reverse the situation from reality to prove a point. Show of hands, anybody born and raised in the USA:
Who would pay extra for a product which came with the source code if you could get closed source freeware which did the same thing?
I don't see anywhere in the article that they bother giving numbers on preference or who in "Europe" they were talking to. Speaking purely in terms of cultural mindset diversity, saying "Europeans" is rather like saying "Asians..." Not particularly illuminating. Depending on what part of Europe you're talking about, you may be talking about a much smaller, far more technically savvy populace who have been programming since they were 10 or 11. Of course access to the source would be important to them. But that's not to say that if they had to pay to get the source, they'd necessarily still consider it a bargain.
The question isn't one of greed, it's of expertise and interest.
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, in the US, companies are more interested in reliability
You misspelled "liability".
Parent
Holy FUD Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an oldie but a goodie and completely untrue. It hails back to some really ancient anti-GPL FUD (think Bill Gates and "viral" licensing).
It couldn't have anything to do with the power of marketing over the simple minds of PHBs? Or the FUDspinners like you? Or ignorance of FOSS alternatives?
What the hell is OpenSQL? Is it a fork of MySQL or PostgreSQL? And surely by "real SQL" you don't mean MS's pitiful SQL Server?
You assume FOSS doesn't work well. It works great, thank you very much. Most people consider putting well built, peer reviewed software in place a huge time and money saver, but if you prefer to wait on hold for tech support for your favorite piece of payware, more power to ya'.
I know, I know. Don't feed the trolls.
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:4, Insightful)
No, From TFA
Open Source doesn't stop vendor lock in. You decide to base your infrastructure on Open Source Products it is just as expensive to switch what ever standard then it would with a closed source app.
I don't think you know the difference between 'vendor' and 'standard'. If the code is open source, but I'm fed up dealing with Red Hat, I can ask Small Local Company to continue the project.
FWIW, the standard is also open. It's much easier to convert between two open standards than between a closed one and an open one, and you can choose any software company to write the code to do it.
You have a Linux infrastructure and you find that it doesn't do what you need it to do anymore, however a windows network does.
That's not open source, and it isn't open standards either. I'd bet converting from a Linux system to a Solaris system is much easier than from Linux to Microsoft.
If you spend millions on a Linux Infrastructure you are stuck on Linux.
Why? Everything is open, so stuff developed by Sun can work with no problems.
The problem is the Europeans are looking at their side with full vision and the American side with stereotype blinders.
The story could do with a Flamebait tag.
They Either see us a Cowboys or NYC Business men. While the truth Americans a diverse group of people spreading a large area, with many sub cultures in our own.
I'm going to laugh. It's what I'm meant to do on /., right?
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:4, Interesting)
Ask a stupid question, get a lot of stupid answers.
The short of it is that the people of the US all have ADHD and very short attention spans. We work for short term gains and care nothing about anything more than a year out. Since the 80's, we have become a society of instant gratification junkies and have come to expect it from everything we interact with. And we habitually do things without knowing why we do them or even understanding what we are doing.
Parent
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
...and some people have a problem with understanding what a generalization is... which, once again, appears to point to another common U.S. American failing -- the notion that it is all about "me" somehow.
The 80's was probably one of the most damaging eras for the U.S. where culture and society are concerned. "Looking out for number one" is a ridiculously selfish notion that has resulted in making "everyone else" a competitor or even an enemy of sorts.
There are indeed a lot of people who do not neatly fall into the category I describe. But, the masses are what I speak... the masses to which that marketers very successfully appeal.
Parent
Re:For shame (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Primary vs Secondary (Score:5, Insightful)
I use Open Source for two reasons ....
I like Open Source ideals (free, as in speech)
I like Open Source results (free as in beer)
I also live in the US, so please categorize me correctly in the "save money" column, until I move to Europe, when you should categorize me in the other column.
This isn't an XOR problem, so who cares which is "more important", especially when the result for using Open Source is the same either way?
Re:Primary vs Secondary (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Primary vs Secondary (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and also if you want to try new software it makes it much easier. Simply download it and go ahead. No need to worry whether you have some restricted trial version. And if you decide to use it, you don't need to care about getting the paperwork done for getting the money (which might not apply widely, but where I am this is a big hassle, and from "Hey we should use it" to "Hey the package has been delivered" usually 3 months pass by).
Parent
Re:Primary vs Secondary (Score:4, Informative)
Around these parts, "open source" usually means what the Open Source Initiative says. In particular, it does when we're discussing software distribution and licensing. While this meaning of "open source" isn't the only possible one, and the OSI couldn't trademark it, it's clearly the meaning in TFA.
If a license forbids use in certain circumstances, commercial or otherwise, it isn't an open source license according to the OSI. (It isn't a free license according to the Free Software Foundation either.)
So, if it's OSI-approved open source, go ahead and use it freely. There may be restrictions if you modify it, or redistribute it, or reuse the source code for other things, but not for simple use.
Parent
Re:Primary vs Secondary (Score:5, Funny)
Once activation is complete every time you start the software it will connect to our server that is online most of the time to verify your access. This process is very quick due to our server's high speed 56k modem. Also, periodically while you are using the software it will take a screenshot and send it to the server for a specialist to determine if you are using the software in accordance with the EULA. This is to ensure the highest quality service support.
Parent
Re:Primary vs Secondary (Score:4, Insightful)
When the primary reason is to remain free from vendor lock-in, or to have the freedom to modify the code as needed, or the freedom to redistribute the code as needed, then it becomes much harder for proprietary vendors to compete.
Parent
Re:Primary vs Secondary (Score:5, Insightful)
"There is nothing inherent to open source that guarantees that it will cost less to buy than proprietary code"
This is 100% false. Even if the proprietary code supplier gives code away, the support costs are set by the proprietary source vendor, not by open market. With Open Source, one can change support vendors or even grow your own support at any time. Vendor lockin is a cost, even if the actual cost is less up front, it rarely is long term.
And that is just for Source Code support. Now, lets talk about data lockin and now we're really adding to the long term costs.
I currently manage a system that has YEARS of data locked in a proprietary format, and the software just plain sucks. But there is no easy (ie "cheap") way to move to another vendor at this point. So, we are stuck, until it becomes too painful to live with.
Parent
how is FOSS "free, as in speech"? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does OSS have to do with "free, as in speech". OSS is not about avoiding government censorship (is it?) it's free /libre/, free to use and abuse, free to modify, free to alter and adapt, free to better for your needs or those of others ... I don't see how that has anything to do with "free, as in speech"?
I'm guessing that in Europe people like FOSS because it's free-libre and free-gratis, whilst in America the populous doesn't know what "libre" means [oh God I hope I spelt it right!] and so make some weird analogy with free speech that misses the mark entirely. Surely "free, as in speech" would be for warez that can't be sold legally but can be given away due to some loophole?
But I'm open to being wrong.
Seriously though can't we just all agree to use libre and gratis?
[Ya, probably flamebait, but everyone loves a barbecue, right?!]
Parent
Re:Primary vs Secondary (Score:5, Interesting)
Sigh. There go my mod points, but I had to speak.
What I really care about open source is that you are practically guaranteed that the bugs will be fixed. You just have to report them (except in rare cases where the actual project is obsolete or it simply sucks).
With "freeware" or proprietary software, you are doomed to accept what the vendor tells you. Oh look, there's a bug! Want to report it? Good luck with that! Specially if it's a product already discontinued by the vendor (i.e. Microsoft Visual Foxpro), where they'll only care about security bugs.
Another good example of an abandoned project was Proxomitron. Remember that one? It was freeware. But guess what, the author had a car accident and died. He never released the source so his project just died.
And what to say, dammit, what to say about the f***ing piece of crap called Internet Explorer!?!?!?!? Is it free as in beer? Yes! Can it be fixed and improved by the community? HELL NO!
I may not contribute back to the sofware pool (yet) and I haven't donated money to projects, but does that make me a greedy bastard? No (the reason why I can't donate money to Open Source is because I don't have a credit card, and no, I don't live in the US so everyoen who blames it on me can simply STFU). I just happen to be in the group of people who care about having software that won't disappear when the author dies or when it's discontinued, leaving me with LOTS AND LOTS OF HEADACHES every time the company I work at requires me to use an OBSOLETE AND DEFECTIVE PIECE OF SH**!
Parent
EU Attitudes In General Are Different (Score:4, Interesting)
When I go to conferences you can always pick out the Americans from the Europeans. During breaks and what not the Americans are busy checking their blackberrys and working while the Europeans are hanging out, drinking a beer and socializing. Their attitudes generally seem more laid back and hippie like than the Americans. It could be that most of the Europeans I see at these conferences are professors while we (the Americans) have real jobs in addition to publishing papers.
Re:EU Attitudes In General Are Different (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:EU Attitudes In General Are Different (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:EU Attitudes In General Are Different (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
I'd be curious about this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be happy to pay for OSS if needed. I do pay for my openSUSE versions and Crossover Office.
I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
I have some OSS out there, and the ONLY donations I've gotten in 3 years and 22,000+ downloads have been from EU countries. US people (of which I am one) just complain that I don't log into their servers, install the software, customize it, etc. for free for them. They (US users) seem offended when they ask me to customize the software for their company and I quote them a price. And then one [US user] even had the nerve to customize my front end, and then try and charge people for the software package!
Re:I agree (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, trying to respond to this in a way that doesn't sound like I'm trying to start a flame war, so...
There are thousands of open source projects out there. I personally use quite a few of them. I don't like to be thought of as a "moocher", because I don't support the project with donations. I do buy CD sets (OpenBSD, twice a year, Slackware, each release), t-shirts and the like, and make donations here and there as I can.
It becomes a logistical challenge to go out and make donations to support each piece of open source software you use. Perhaps if there was one (honest) group that accepted donations, then passed them out to open source groups that were registered with them, I would be more inclined to give regular donations. As it is, I respect your work, and the time and effort you (speaking to all open source developers here) put into creating and maintaining this software, and will make donations as I can. One thing I've found that tends to catch my eye is a well placed PayPal button that says "Make a donation to help support this software". I've been known to do the "impulse buy" thing and click the button and make a $5 or $10 (US) donation. Perhaps you might want to put one of those in, to make donating a little easier?
When I use a particular piece of open source software, and like it, I tend to "evangelize" it to my friends and acquaintances. I have even been known to submit bug reports from time to time. Perhaps this contribution is almost as good as a monetary one?
Parent
Working for an American Firm (Score:4, Insightful)
Working for an American firm, I find that cost is usually the deciding factor.
This drives me nuts! I'm not much of an open-source fanatic, but I've found that every time we buy an expensive piece of enterprise software, we've been sold huge expectations with little follow through. For example, we recently bought a product and we asked the company whether it worked with Firefox and Safari. They assured us that they had plenty of customers using it with those two browsers. So, we plunk down my yearly salary for the product and a support contract and low-and-behold not only doesn't the site work, it actually displays an error message saying you must use IE6.
Now, this presented problems for me since we have a bunch of Mac users who couldn't use it for lack of IE6. Now those users are set up to use a Windows remote desktop solution for it.
Basically, that proprietary software simply makes my life harder. We look at open-source solutions and we get a good idea of what we'd have to do if we used it which is always more than what a company claims we'll have to do with their system that just handles things automagically for everything! In the end, I have to spend more time on the proprietary system we paid big bucks for.
Bad Expensive Software (Score:4, Insightful)
Often the more expensive the piece of software is, the worse the software is. It is a perverse example of applied economics. Expensive software sells in small volumes, so the vendors try to maximize profit per customer. Effectively, this means minimizing effort in software development, resulting in crappy software.
Companies selling large volumes of software, find technical support costs a large cost center. This forces the companies to increase software quality and increase ease of use, even if only to reduce technical support costs. However, to achieve the volumes of sales, these same companies often reduce the unit price of the software. High-volume software vendors are trying to maximize the formula: revenue = unit cost * # of sales. Thus most high-volume titles cost much less than the more expensive low-volume titles, and are also better quality pieces of software.
Open source takes things to an extreme. The software is free, the source is free, so the number of users is large. The number of bug fixes will also be large, if the number of developers scales with the number of users. Of course, the number of developers on an open-source project is a function of both revenue and the number of bugs, and with open source projects, revenue is a key issue. Nevertheless, some open source projects have identified revenue streams, and are good quality projects.
The end result is expensive software is usually crappy, and cheaper software is often better.
Parent
If it's mission critical... (Score:5, Insightful)
I collegue of mine with an excellent track record as IT and R&D manager in the European Call Center industry once said (and I agree):
- "if the application is mission critical, then we need the source"
It disturbs me... (Score:4, Insightful)
You may call it bragging rights, I call it a lack of vision.
Eh, I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that in the US, the mass population that is, NOT the IT crowd, likes Open Source because they are trying to save money. The perfect example of this is Open Office. Let me tell you, my mom, pastor, sister, and my best friend all could care less if they had access to the source code. I would be shocked if a single one of them could program "Hello World". However, they LOVE the thought of not shelling out a couple of Hundred bucks to Microsoft. Not because they hate Microsoft, but because they want to save money. The sister I mentioned earlier also just graduated graphic arts school, and is a Gimp user, not because she has access to the source code or anything like that, but because it is free.
I pieced together a few computers for a church before, and we went Linux with Open Office, once again, because its free.
None of these were because they thought Linux, Open Office, or Gimp were better, in fact, all of these people would have prefered the pay program. People like free. People will do stupid stuff to get stuff for free. You know how many users I had to remove spyware and viruses from because they tried installing free 3D or Living Screensavers, 1000 free smilies at smily central, or animated coursers? In fact, I have tons of friend's myspace pages that I refuse to goto until they clean up their code and get rid of all those evil ActiveX and JavaScript controls.
You ought too see how many people will drive 30-45 miles across town to save 20 cents a gallon on gas. I point and laugh at those people.
Yet, not a single one of these people mind paying $18 for a pizza, $24.95 a month for dialup, or $120 a month for their cable bill.
I don't buy it on dual licensing (Score:4, Interesting)
So of the 6 European Open Source projects I can name of the top of my head, 4 are dual licensed.
US: land of the free (Score:4, Funny)
Re:We're broke! (Score:4, Insightful)
Haven't you seen the news? We need all the bucks we can get!
It's actually quite the opposite. We've printed too many.
Parent
Re:Get real (Score:5, Informative)
Are you sure about that? Can you substantiate that claim with some numbers and quote a source?
In the 80's you saw a lot of creative programming come out of the Eastern Block, from what then still were Soviet satellite states. They had to squeeze all the functionality they could get out of bad/cheap/old hardware and therefore made software on a shoestring budget that really did interesting things. To this day you have very decent software development shops in unlikely places like Slovenia, Bulgaria and whatnot.
Then there are the "celebs". Linus Torvalds, as you might recall, is Finnish, "DVD" Jon Johansen is Norwegian and Matthias Ettrich of KDE Fame is German. I know a fair amount of Germans that did/do open source stuff, and Suse is originally German. Furthermore, Israel boasts a very high quality R&D community in both commercial and Open Software while Computer gaming was invented by a British professor with an overgrown oscilloscope and time to kill.
All in all I have to be a little bit skeptical about that post of yours. After all, Americans surely didn't invent cars and motorcycles, and to this day they can't build 'm properly either. I very much doubt they invented the Linux kernel. :-D
Parent