On 2003.07.05 11:24 Dustin Puryear wrote: > At 03:02 PM 7/4/2003 -0700, you wrote: > ... > Assume consumers need a product that an open source developer hasn't had > the itch to scratch. Knowing this, who pays for the software to be created? > Under Will's concept that "software companies will adopt free software and > earn their living by implementing it for people", a single consumer, or if > we are lucky a group of consumers, pay the cost of that implementation. > With this model the cost of the project is very high for a small group of > people, whereas if you can spread the cost of development across the entire > market the cost per-person is greatly reduced. This is basic economics. > ... > > How can open source developers use this principle to their advantage? >
The biggest advantage to free software today is the large code base. A company like Spyglass may have to start from scratch or close to it, but a free software developer has much of the groundwork covered. Costs for mundane applications are eliminated. If someone wants a text editor, you simply figure out which one they would most like. Complicated projects can be broken down into a series of mundane ones and strung together with a unique chunk. If I were trying to do things the Microsoft way, I'd have to find owners of software like I want and pay them all a fee or purchase them or do it from scratch. My costs would be much higher and I'd be subject to the whims of those owners. As a free developer, I can put the system together at no cost besides my time. If what I put together was worth using, I could get paid to put it in place. What I charge would be mostly for hardware used and development time. Sure, others would be able to do the same thing in time, but my clients would remain mine until someone did it much better than me. The fact that anyone can walk in and figure out what I did is just another selling point. I can't make things uncomfortable for them. At River Bend, I saw lots of places free software would have made things easier for everyone. The more traditional method of software development has left plants with many small databases that don't play with each other, have to be replaced periodically and are at the whim of Microsoft too. One of those small databases was very good because Entergy had spent five million dollars making it themselves. They are not trying to replace that system with one that Peoplesoft made that costs fifteen million dollars. I did not get to see the new system, but I doubt it will do three times as much as the old system. In fact, I doubt it will even do as much as the old system or as well. Chances are, it will suffer the same proprietary fate as the last system.
