Re: [Fsfe-uk] BECTA discriminate against FLOSS?

[ian]

On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 18:03, Chris Croughton wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:58:58PM +0000, ian wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 11:55, Kevin Donnelly wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Saturday 03 January 2004 11:11 am, ian wrote:
> > > 
> > > I think the big problem with all "official" bodies is that they are
> > > very risk-averse (for good reasons - nobody wants to get a drilling
> > > in front of the PAC or equivalent for "wasting taxpayers' money").
> > > So they will tend to go for something that "everybody else is
> > > using". 
> > 
> > True, however they still have a fair track record of wasting taxpayers
> > money ;-) They are quite able to do that with whatever systems they
> > use.
> 
> It's the old "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" problem.  When there
> is an 'obvious' large supplier that is the safe option, irrespective of
> whether there are cheaper or 'better' options, because "everyone does
> it".  IBM itself is no longer in that position, but MS are very firmly
> there.

I think you might be surprised. IBM's brand still holds a lot of weight
which is why their backing for Linux is vitally important.

On the issue of risk, (Alex's point), the onply risk in business is to
take no risk. The highest risk stocks have overall outperformed the
lowest risk ove the last Century, but some spread betting is needed ;-)

> > > Unfortunately, they may not believe that free software is here to
> > > stay, and that it really does offer all the benefits it promises.  
> > 
> > Tide seems to be turning even if slowly so we just have to keep
> > plugging away. Once they do believe FLOSS is here to stay - and the
> > whole of China going over to it is reasonably persuasive - things
> > could change very rapidly.
> 
> I'm tempted to move to China, or one of the South American countries
> which is heavily promoting FLOSS for government use <g>.
> 
> > Its why I spend so much time developing this side of our business -
> > risky to an extent but the potential rewards being in at the beginning
> > are much greater than working for MS.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't work for MS if you paid me.  

Anyone that sells any MS products is effectively working for MS. Its
very difficult to be in the IT business and on principle sell no MS
product. The way I look at it is that its a necessary evil to stay in
business that enables me to shift away from MS. It also gives a bit of
even-handedness. We will supply what ever the customer wants because we
know both systems and we can give even-handed advice. In fact, if all
purchasers who had to buy MS products but preferred free software bought
from companies like mine, a) we would be in a better position to promote
FLOSS and b) It sends a message to other companies that there is a
marketing edge in supporting FLOSS.

> But is FLOSS actually all
> that financially rewarding? 

At least as good as selling MS based stuff - actually better if you can
persuade people to buy it without spending a lot of money on marketing.
That is the killer for most people. The cost of promoting FLOSS against
the behometh of MS branding can be prohibitively expensive. In the end
its all marketing bo***ox :-). Most software licensing revenue goes into
marketing and fighting court cases etc which is why its a pretty
inefficient production model. Once people realise that the open standard
is the thing to go for the marketing battle is won as far as FLOSS is
concerned so prices tumble.

>  I have yet to see a business model for
> FLOSS which really supports developing the software, the RMS ideals seem
> to be based on getting revenue for maintaining it which seems to me a
> lot more shaky (for instance, if I have the source and can apply the
> patches myself, or even just download the next version from the net, I
> don't make any revenue for anyone).

I think on the major applications such as OS an Office suite, browsers
etc - the only things MS makes any real money on - the development model
is easily sustainable from relatively marginal input from large
corporates and governments say largely through the universities. For
specialist apps, I think the jury is still out, but just the OS and
major productivity apps would be a major step forward. It doesn't have
to be all or nothing and in fact I doubt it ever will be.


>   Red Hat is not a good example (it
> seems to me that they are breaking the spirit of FLOSS even if not the
> letter of the licence).

Models will evolve and we are in a volatile state of flux, so the exact
details of what will settle out with stability is difficult to predict.

> > > I had a fairly senior individual say to me that he was suspicious of
> > > committing to OpenOffice.org - wasn't it just a ploy by Sun to gain
> > > marketshare, and wouldn't they make it proprietary again once they'd
> > > reached their target (whatever that was) for marketshare?  My reply
> > > about the licence being irretrievable didn't really convince him.
> 
> I do hope you said 'irrevokable', an 'irretrievable' licence doesn't
> sound very good <g>.
> 
> > I have come across this too. Its really ignorance and wishful
> > thinking.  Most people are personally averse to change - its hassle so
> > justifying a reason not to change is natural. If such individuals
> > seriously liked the idea of change to OO.o and the corresponding
> > savings they'd do the necessary research to find out the truth about
> > things like this.
> 
> But they don't really want to change anything, except to pay less money.

They don't even want to pay less if its not their money! Resistance to
change is natural, it just becomes inevitable when early adopters start
to get competitive advantage. When its change or lose your job, the mind
becomes a bit more focused.

> Very few people are at all interested in the 'freedom' aspects of
> software.  Out of the four GNU freedoms, the only one they are
> interested in is the first, "the freedom to run the program, for any
> purpose", and they believe they have that with proprietary software
> (once they have a site-wide licence, at least).  They aren't interested
> (or capable in most cases) of studying the program and adapting it
> themselves, nor in improving it and releasing the improvements to the
> public.  And many companies (and lots of individuals) do believe that
> they have the right to copy it and give it away (as long as they don't
> get caught).

Its more complex than that. The freedoms are to an extent interdependent
and free as in free beer is supported by lowering inconvenience and
admin costs from free as in free to use and free as in free to develop
also has potential to lower costs. In the end it all boils down to a
more efficient economic model and where this is the case it will thrive.

> 
> The only sort of 'free' they are really interested in is "as in beer",
> and large organisations tend to distrust that 'free' things are any good
> ("anything free is worth what you pay for it"), or think that there's a
> catch somewhere ("there's no free lunch" -- as in someone taking it over
> and making it proprietary again).

Yeav but there is around 12 billion a year going to MS which can be cut
out of the equation. That's nothing to do with free lunches, its just
improving production efficiency.

> It's up to the people 'selling' free software to make a good case for
> it, just like with any other product.  If I've always bought cars from
> Ford, why should I research anyone else's cars?
> 
> > They are followers, not leaders. But that is a source of competitive
> > advantage. If things do start to tip, those who have buried their
> > heads in the sand stand to lose out big time to those that have taken
> > the trouble to learn the reality. Knowledge is power.
> 
> Nice soundbite, but as far as I can see it only really applies to big
> changes in technology, and not always even there.  Those who decried CDs
> did indeed lose out in te end, but look at VCRs where those early
> adopters who bought the (technically superior) Betamax ones got burnt
> when the actual market went to VHS. 

Betamax/VHS is the most misquoted example and rarely that applicable. On
the VHS/beta argument you could just as easily say, yeah, even if Linux
is worse than Windows it'll get adopted because its in more industry
players long term advantage to do so.

>  Those who waited to see which would
> win out gained because they didn't have to change.  The same is
> happening with DVD +/- R/RW, whichever one becomes standardised the
> "early adopters" will in the main lose.

No, the early adopters that get it wrong lose, those that get it right
win hand over fist which is why VCs *expect* to lose quite a proportion
of their investments for the one that goes real big.

<SNIP>
> If there were a "file of case studies" to which people could be pointed
> then that would indeed help, but I don't see one.  Don't expect the
> potential buyers to go hunting, though.

I don't, but its rather more efficient to go and talk to them and
actively sell them product than to spend the time writing case studies
;-)

Regards
-- 
ian <address@hidden>