On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, sivaji j.g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> forward message from my friend .
>
>
> Is Open Source Software a Race To Zero?
>
> gozunda writes "My company is an open source software
> vendor/developer. We maintain a popular open source project and keep
> ourselves afloat by producing commercial products derived from or
> extending the value of the core project. Over time we've seen our
> business model eroding as other open source projects produce free
> versions of the same extensions and utilities that are our bread and
> butter. Something that was worth $5K last year is suddenly worth $0
> because the free version is just as good as the paid. This same cycle
> is obviously having an impact on pure-play commercial software
> vendors. Is open source ultimately a race to zero? In ten years will
> there be any cost associated with commodity (non-custom) software? If
> not, will there still be a 'software industry' as it exists today, or
> will software simply be a by-product of the operation of other
> industries?
There are some lines of work that few will enter except for money;
road construction, for example. There are other fields of study and
art in which there is little chance to become rich, which people enter
for their fascination or their perceived value to society. Examples
include mathematical logic, classical music, and archaeology; and
political organizing among working people. People compete, more sadly
than bitterly, for the few funded positions available, none of which
is funded very well. They may even pay for the chance to work in the
field, if they can afford to.
Such a field can transform itself overnight if it begins to offer the
possibility of getting rich. When one worker gets rich, others demand
the same opportunity. Soon all may demand large sums of money for
doing what they used to do for pleasure. When another couple of years
go by, everyone connected with the field will deride the idea that
work would be done in the field without large financial returns. They
will advise social planners to ensure that these returns are possible,
prescribing special privileges, powers, and monopolies as necessary to
do so.
This change happened in the field of computer programming in the past
decade. Fifteen years ago, there were articles on "computer
addiction": users were "onlining" and had hundred-dollar-a-week
habits. It was generally understood that people frequently loved
programming enough to break up their marriages. Today, it is generally
understood that no one would program except for a high rate of pay.
People have forgotten what they knew fifteen years ago.
When it is true at a given time that most people will work in a
certain field only for high pay, it need not remain true. The dynamic
of change can run in reverse, if society provides an impetus. If we
take away the possibility of great wealth, then after a while, when
the people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be
eager to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment.
The question, "How can we pay programmers?" becomes an easier question
when we realize that it's not a matter of paying them a fortune. A
mere living is easier to raise.
> Is that a good thing or a bad thing? As a professional
> developer, do I need to fear this or feed it?"
>
What Is Software Productivity?
If software were free, there would still be programmers, but perhaps
fewer of them. Would this be bad for society?
Not necessarily. Today the advanced nations have fewer farmers than in
1900, but we do not think this is bad for society, because the few
deliver more food to the consumers than the many used to do. We call
this improved productivity. Free software would require far fewer
programmers to satisfy the demand, because of increased software
productivity at all levels:
* Wider use of each program that is developed.
* The ability to adapt existing programs for customization instead
of starting from scratch.
* Better education of programmers.
* The elimination of duplicate development effort.
Those who object to cooperation claiming it would result in the
employment of fewer programmers are actually objecting to increased
productivity. Yet these people usually accept the widely-held belief
that the software industry needs increased productivity. How is this?
"Software productivity" can mean two different things: the overall
productivity of all software development, or the productivity of
individual projects. Overall productivity is what society would like
to improve, and the most straightforward way to do this is to
eliminate the artificial obstacles to cooperation which reduce it. But
researchers who study the field of "software productivity" focus only
on the second, limited, sense of the term, where improvement requires
difficult technological advances.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
&
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.ta.html
--
ஆமாச்சு
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe <password> <address>"
in the subject or body of the message.
http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
