Future of open source?

[usp8riot]

Do you ever see a way for an open source OS to surpass OS's like Windows and OSX without relying entirely on donations? I think there needs to be a change in model for it to overcome. Any suggestions?

[vishzilla]

It all depends on us, the users. Users should broaden their scope and look beyond Windows and Mac at times. The community of developers and users also have a role to play in laying the foundation for a strong future

[usp8riot]

I agree. The nature of open source depends on its user base for its support and improvements but what motivation is there for devs? Surely there should be some way to pay them or else I don't see how it could keep up with the other OS's. Maybe there should be a free edition of Ubuntu and a paid.

Also, I'm not a dev but, is there any way for open source devs to make any money? There's money in apps made for open source OS's but what about the OS devs? Is there a future for ad-induced income for linux OS's? The enterprise market has it's share of paying clients. Does K/Ubuntu have an edition that you can pay for like Mandriva? Whatever the case, I think it's on us desktop users to get the ball rolling and improve it to pave the way for a higly competitive OS and other linux projects to compete with the big 2.

[happysmileman]

I agree. The nature of open source depends on its user base for its support and improvements but what motivation is there for devs? Surely there should be some way to pay them or else I don't see how it could keep up with the other OS's. Maybe there should be a free edition of Ubuntu and a paid.

Also, I'm not a dev but, is there any way for open source devs to make any money? There's money in apps made for open source OS's but what about the OS devs? Is there a future for ad-induced income for linux OS's? The enterprise market has it's share of paying clients. Does K/Ubuntu have an edition that you can pay for like Mandriva? Whatever the case, I think it's on us desktop users to get the ball rolling and improve it to pave the way for a higly competitive OS and other linux projects to compete with the big 2.

I found it hard to understand at first too, but a lot of the developers are happy to code things for free in their spare time, and most make their living from day jobs... Look at *ubuntu now, with Compiz-fusion and the correct graphics drivers and you'll see that it really is viable to compete with Vista/Mac OS X without having to charge. they've got this far without having to charge because the developers LIKE what they do, and thus produce better code, unlike the MS coders who work 9-5 5 days a week, the OSS developers can work one day a week if the want, and tke holidays at any time, without getting in trouble at all, and the great increase in morale would help the code.

And what i have to say to your idea of charging, I don't think i'd be using it if it cost money, neither would most people, I tried it because it was simple to get for free.
However now that i have it I'd have no problem donating to any distro I like, but would refuse point blank to pay for one, if that makes sense (Though I'm 15 and have no way of donating I can think of)

ALso many distros (including Ubuntu i think) will offer paid support as an option, usually aimed at companies, and therefore when they get popular with end-users, businesses will then look into it and might notice and take the paid support... Think of an internet café, could easily be set up with Kiosk and a browser, yet no internet café would accept public forums as reasonable support

[reidbold]

You can sell open source software, as long as you include the source.

[bruce89]

Future of open source?

I think in the future it will be called Free Software.

[popch]

I think in the future it will be called Free Software.

It will only be called Free Software if it's free software, i.e. if it is software and free of charge. Presumably it will be called Open Source if the source is open to inspection.

[IYY]

Do you ever see a way for an open source OS to surpass OS's like Windows and OSX without relying entirely on donations? I think there needs to be a change in model for it to overcome. Any suggestions?

Relying entirely on donations? I don't think you understand how Open Source software gets developed. Companies like RedHat, Novell and IBM pour a lot of money into Open Source projects, and plenty of developers get very decent salaries. Generally, those companies earn their money by charging for support.

Canonical, the company that makes Ubuntu, is not earning any money yet, but the business plan is similar. You have to consider that Canonical doesn't actually develop the software that goes into Ubuntu or even the OS itself, but only manages the arrangement of existing components. When compared to what Apple and Microsoft have to do (code everything from scratch), it's easy to see why it needs so much less money to create a superior product.

[popch]

Do you ever see a way for an open source OS to surpass OS's like Windows and OSX without relying entirely on donations? I think there needs to be a change in model for it to overcome. Any suggestions?

In order to answer that question, you have to be aware of how 'OSs like Windows' got where they are now.

The issue was never ever what software was better or richer of features or anything like that. The issue always was how good anyone was at gaining market shares. MS always won that particular issue because they (a) found a way to ensure they were part of the relevant market and (b) they had money to spend on marketing.

Thus, Windows has a markedly greater marketing penetration. They spent their effort not in building a better product but in gaining market shares. That might also include producing a product after a fashion, but that is not material.

[usp8riot]

"Relying entirely on donations? I don't think you understand how Open Source software gets developed. Companies like RedHat, Novell and IBM pour a lot of money into Open Source projects, and plenty of developers get very decent salaries. Generally, those companies earn their money by charging for support."

And again, what incentive is there to provide a more intuitive OS if to some degree, if they make it harder to use, they make more money? And for most of us users, there's nothing better than Google for support. I know generally how money is gained in the OSS model but I'm just curious as to how competitive it is compared to the standard capital model, closed source and charged per app or OS.

The thing I like about the OSS model is how it's a collaboration of so many people, that it could rapidly improve a product and advance the industry. Just as, for example, if information is shared between other industries in real time, so many advancements could be made. I think it's perhaps about feeding the one versus the whole but then again, in OSS, everyone wins, it's just that maybe a main contributor won't be as financially well off unless perhaps the collaberation deems him/her to be. But take a look at Linus Torvalds. Not as well of as Gates or Jobs but he does have a devout following, even considering his insinstence sometimes. Maybe I'm worrying a bit too much about the future of it. I think there willl always be a future in the foresee-able future only time will tell how competitive it will be.

[az]

And again, what incentive is there to provide a more intuitive OS if to some degree, if they make it harder to use, they make more money? And for most of us users, there's nothing better than Google for support. I know generally how money is gained in the OSS model but I'm just curious as to how competitive it is compared to the standard capital model, closed source and charged per app or OS.

The thing I like about the OSS model is how it's a collaboration of so many people, that it could rapidly improve a product and advance the industry. Just as, for example, if information is shared between other industries in real time, so many advancements could be made. I think it's perhaps about feeding the one versus the whole but then again, in OSS, everyone wins, it's just that maybe a main contributor won't be as financially well off unless perhaps the collaberation deems him/her to be. But take a look at Linus Torvalds. Not as well of as Gates or Jobs but he does have a devout following, even considering his insinstence sometimes. Maybe I'm worrying a bit too much about the future of it. I think there willl always be a future in the foresee-able future only time will tell how competitive it will be.

There was a study release a year ago about the software landscape in the EU. It is called the MERIT study - you can google it.

Only a small percentage of full-time developers work for shrink-wrapped for-sale software products. The rest (like 80 or 90 oer cent) develop software for in-house or otherwise non-commodity software (not shelfware). There is no value in shelfware. There is value in making your computer perform a certain task. And lots of developers get paid for doing just that without having to have the software sold.

They work under a different model, but I doubt that it can be called less successful than the closed-source proprietary model. If you are worried about developers not gettign paid, I would start to worry about those 10 to 20 percent of developers who work for shelfware products - with more and more software patents, they will soon find themselves in a doomed industry.

Do you honestly think that every billion dollars in sales made my Microsoft goes to their developers? I doubt that. I reckon the lion's share of those profits are given to their lawyers.

A successful proprietary software company today starts off with two developers. After they sell their first few software products, the company grows to ten employees - they add another developer, a manager and six lawyers.

If the proprietary model did not exist, do you think there would be no Excel or Photoshop? Of course there would. Those programs exist because the need was there. The need I am talking about is not the need to own the software, but the need to make your computer do something. And FLOSS can satisfy those needs just as well (and certainly a lot better) than proprietary software.