From: "Craig White" <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 10:51 -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Peter Gordon" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Aaron Konstam wrote:
>> Well that depends on the answer to the question that open software
>> advocates have to answer. How do oyu make money on software that you
>> give away free?
>>
>> I think this is a critical question that needs a workable answer.
>
> The answer to that one is rather straightforward: Sell warrantied
> support and services. Red Hat has proven time and time again that such
> a business model can be and *is* quite profitable. :)
It is for a large organization. It is not for me as a single person
consultant. I either create new software and give it away or I create
once and start supporting it on the phone for the rest of my life for
pay until some other person creates competition for my software. If I
write the software PROPERLY there is no need for support. Therefore I
am out in the cold.
I do NOT want to spend my life trying to live off support contracts.
I do not suffer fools gladly. (Honest problems I do enjoy helping
people solve. But some people just come up with absurd questions and
demands which can set me off. This might be someone with a grandiose
system administer title in their message who cannot do a simple
apropos and man or demand list members to remove the self styled
"system administrator" for a large company from this mailing list.
That kind of arrogance does not sit well with me. After too many
repeats of these absurdities I lose it.)
By the way, has anybody noticed how much a license for Qt costs if
you want to get PAID for software you right? I might as well simply
get an MSDN license and develop for XP. Ditto with respect to the
RHEL costs. They cost MORE than XP in the long run.
This surely is an issue that needs solution, especially for the small
developer.
----
there's nothing that says that you have to use qt and if you are
developing GPL licensed software, the qt license is different than if
you develop software that is restricted license.
I can appreciate that you don't want to write software for free and end
up supporting it for pay but it is a model that works for some
people/companies but it doesn't necessarily work for everyone. That's
why there is a choice.
For a majority of computer usage, there is little software innovation.
Many software companies simply regurgitate the same software over and
over, fix some bugs, add a few features and sell the update to the same
customers over and over again because that is the only business model
that they understand. Things like GPL and Linux provide an alternative
to this cycle for the consumer...they don't need to necessarily
purchase/repurchase software and I think that the best example is the
'office suite' of products.
More to the point, the 'purchase' of software is an investment in a
company whose survival can be tenuous. Those who purchased 'Real World
Accounting' found it lacking when Great Plains Accounting bought Real
World and now it is just a memory since Microsoft purchased Great Plains
and ceased all development/support of Real World. Purchased software has
a history of being orphaned, swallowed, discontinued, abandoned, etc.
GPL software has more durability and can be picked up by someone else
where proprietary software simply disappears at corporate whim.
Now as for RHEL vs. Microsoft - they are very different things that you
are purchasing. Microsoft sells software with a license. Red Hat sells
RHEL support. If you purchase Windows 2003 server and you call Microsoft
for support, you have to pay. If you purchase RHEL ES 4 entitlement and
you call Red Hat for support, the support is included...that is what Red
Hat is selling. If you want RHEL ES 4 and don't need/want support, you
can use a re-spin such as CentOS 4.
So if all I want is the updates not telephone support or anything else
where does RedHat make their money? Or do they intentionally deliver
software that is so undocumented that it does need their active support
to make it run?
{^_-}
