Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The strange economics of open-source software

philipotoole.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: The strange economics of open-source software

#81

Post by nickpsecurity »

teddyh wrote: post #67
jlarocco wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Innovation in open source is all on commodity computer stuff that developers understand, like operating systems, compilers, web browsers, and databases. For almost everything that requires other expertise the innovation is still done in closed source software. Stuff like photo editing (LightRoom, Photoshop, Capture One), video editing (Premiere, Flame, DS), high end rendering (Renderman, 3Delight), CAD (Cati…

You list things which proprietary software does way better than free software. I remember when the list was the other way around – i.e. people would list things that free software could now do , which were not very many at the time. It’s interesting that this relationship has now been reversed, and people, like yourself, now instead list the things which proprietary software can do better.

That's interesting if true. It's going in that direction, too. However, I think the list is still the same: most tasks have proprietary applications that do it better with OSS mostly trying to clone them and more rarely innovating past them. I mean, MS Office vs OpenOffice? VMS or NonStop clustering vs whatever's on Linux? Windows or Mac OS vs GNOME?

Most OSS just sucks compared to best proprietary stuff. It still can't do better. So, proprietary tools are the ones that OSS is still judged by. Certain categories, esp in infrastructure, have OSS kicking serious butt. The dynamic works the opposite way. Even stronger are the hybrids of proprietary and OSS that make the argument less meaningful. Many of us have predicted that hybrids would smash both with some evidence of this in cloud sector. OSS still isn't in that dominant position in general, though.

Re: The strange economics of open-source software

#82

Post by nickpsecurity »

brc wrote: post #5

I don't find it strange at all, and looking at a proper classical economist - they would have no trouble explaining it. Most people, when understanding economics tend to make the jump directly to money/cash when explaining prices and market action. But to be correct you have to look at utility. There's little question as to why companies install open source software - the TCO can be lower. But why do people contribut…

A recent conversation with a company selling proprietary hardware with open software gave another angle: fixing stuff. Many, many organizations like having source code so they can investigate and fix problems. Whole projects have been burned by an inability to do this with something they acquired and built on. So, from an economic sense, maybe people discussing this should factor in avoiding liability.

Re: The strange economics of open-source software

#83

Post by nickpsecurity »

hodgesrm wrote: post #16

It's a bit hard to argue that infrastructure software is dominated by open source. The stack behind Amazon Web Services is almost 100% closed. It's not just closed source--Amazon rarely even comments about how services like S3, EBS, and Redshift work except when they fail. All of the DBMS they have developed are closed source as well. Closed source database innovation is alive and well.

Most innovation in databases is either proprietary companies or small teams of academics. Of the proprietary companies, some choose to open source their work. Yet, it's still done in a proprietary style of one, paid team building it. Add in the fact that many OSS projects have paid or sponsored developers.

All together, leads me to wonder whether most OSS should be considered proprietary development or how much community-driven efforts actually accomplish.

Re: The strange economics of open-source software

#84

Post by jononor »

gaius wrote: post #78
mseebach wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "you" can't wing them in any generalizable manner (why isn't everyone doing it, then?). For high paying gigs (not merely well-paid ones), you need a reputation. There are several ways to build a reputation, and contributing to a popular OSS project is one such way. An interesting, tangential point is that OSS is probably the most pure meritocratic way to build a reputation -- it does not rely on gaining access to…

I wonder how true that ia - you could just get hired by a powerful company and sidestep all that. Pottering would be a classic example of this.

I'm fairly sure L.Poettering got hired by RedHat several years after starting to write Avahi+PulseAudio.

Re: The strange economics of open-source software

#85

Post by elektromekatron »

notNow wrote: post #75
mikekchar wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't annoy me, but I have to say that I think you are wrong ;-). My google-fu gave me the following definition for communism: "a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs." I suppose there is some superficial resemblance, but I consider communism a means of doling out limited resources in…

I agree with you. This is not communism at all. Two of the most defining characteristics of Communism are power centralization and common ownership while modern FOSS fortunately don't possess of these qualities. IMO, FOSS is more leaning to the socialist/anarchist/libertarian side of the political spectrum with decentralization, resources sharing and distribution and disdain for authority at its core.

If they were around today, I suspect Marx would see much of open source as communist and Lenin wouldn't, but then communism has a few definitions, and the one you are latching on to is state communism, which isn't even communism by its own theory, but is supposedly the state of struggle that has to be gone through before communism is eventually reached. Not that I have ever bought into that view, as it seems to be an obvious con by people to seize and hold power with promise of nice stuff round the corner.

Re: The strange economics of open-source software

#86

Post by notNow »

elektromekatron wrote: post #85
notNow wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. This is not communism at all. Two of the most defining characteristics of Communism are power centralization and common ownership while modern FOSS fortunately don't possess of these qualities. IMO, FOSS is more leaning to the socialist/anarchist/libertarian side of the political spectrum with decentralization, resources sharing and distribution and disdain for authority at its core.

If they were around today, I suspect Marx would see much of open source as communist and Lenin wouldn't, but then communism has a few definitions, and the one you are latching on to is state communism, which isn't even communism by its own theory, but is supposedly the state of struggle that has to be gone through before communism is eventually reached. Not that I have ever bought into that view, as it seems to be an…

So you don't think that the FOSS movement has a left-leaning anarchist/libertarian spirit to it?

Re: The strange economics of open-source software

#87

Post by jlarocco »

teddyh wrote: post #67
jlarocco wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Innovation in open source is all on commodity computer stuff that developers understand, like operating systems, compilers, web browsers, and databases. For almost everything that requires other expertise the innovation is still done in closed source software. Stuff like photo editing (LightRoom, Photoshop, Capture One), video editing (Premiere, Flame, DS), high end rendering (Renderman, 3Delight), CAD (Cati…

You list things which proprietary software does way better than free software. I remember when the list was the other way around – i.e. people would list things that free software could now do , which were not very many at the time. It’s interesting that this relationship has now been reversed, and people, like yourself, now instead list the things which proprietary software can do better.

I don't think the situation has reversed at all, and in fact open source has grown tremendously. There's more open source and free software, of higher quality, than any other time in the past. Commodity software like operating systems and web browsers are now dominated by open source.

My point is that despite the growth, there are still many, many areas where the open source offerings are pretty lame and noncompetitive (if they even exist). Open source has never been very competitive in any of the areas I mentioned.

Re: The strange economics of open-source software

#88

Post by elektromekatron »

notNow wrote: post #86
elektromekatron wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were around today, I suspect Marx would see much of open source as communist and Lenin wouldn't, but then communism has a few definitions, and the one you are latching on to is state communism, which isn't even communism by its own theory, but is supposedly the state of struggle that has to be gone through before communism is eventually reached. Not that I have ever bought into that view, as it seems to be an…

So you don't think that the FOSS movement has a left-leaning anarchist/libertarian spirit to it?

On the contrary, I am saying that there is a lot of crossover.

Re: The strange economics of open-source software

#89

Post by brc »

arethuza wrote: post #73
brc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand utility properly, and sounds like you have a hard sciences bent. The point of utility is that everyone is different. They will all behave in chaotic and unpredictable ways. The only way to make sense of why people exchange is to make the assumption that each participant in the exchange gains something greater than what they give up. Since the thing they gain and the thing they give up are…

"sounds like you have a hard sciences bent" As someone who does come from a hard science/engineering background I tend to find that every time someone tries to explain economics to me the more alarming it sounds.

Understanding the behaviour of individuals choice with limited resources is the key to understanding economics.

The tools of economics provide a dim light through the fog of chaotic crowd interactions. It's not suppose to be a blueprint.

Re: The strange economics of open-source software

#90

Post by digi_owl »

crdoconnor wrote: post #48
digi_owl wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly ol' Marx tried to differentiate between use and exchange. He called it value, but i suspect it could easily translate into the utility of modern economics. Sadly he seemed to have managed to talk himself into circles trying to argue that labor was the source of value, and therefore capitalists were labor exploiters. Because of this he ended up mixing use and exchange value when talking about production…

>Interestingly ol' Marx tried to differentiate between use and exchange. Well, of course they're different. It does seem that Neoclassical economics is fundamentally structured upon a series of misdirections that benefit capitalists: * Blurring use and exchange value. * The non-existence of money in neoclassical models. * The non-existence of banks or other credit intermediaries in neoclassical models. * Even the non…

Steve Keen have some lovely lines in his presentations about those assumptions.

https://www.youtube.com/user/ProfSteveKeen

Post reply on HN