Open Source Concept vs current world model
Pages: 12
I don't get that, open source also help create more jobs for programmers. Take php for example, if php wasn't open source it wouldn't be so widely used and if it wasn't so widely used then companies wouldn't be looking for php developers nowadays. So essentially, every php developer out there can be thankful for having their jobs due to the open source movement.
That's not counting companies looking for people who are good with linux as well. I guess it just depends on the perspective you put it in. For me though, the way I see it, the more open source solutions we have, the more likely it is that companies will need people who are knowledgeable about them. Hence also increasing potential employment.
Edit:
I think Richard Stallman of the GNU project probably started it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
I think open source also promotes freedom of choice for the end users, so it's probably closer to democracy compared to communism.
Free software is always a good marketing strategy though in my opinion, because it increases your user base (that's why facebook is popular too because of the free games). Like in the previous "php being widely used" example, which in a way indirectly help create more jobs. It also helps companies reduce development costs, and if companies profit more it's less likely that they will go bankrupt which also prevents developers from losing their jobs. Companies can then focus development on "new stuff" for their users instead of reinventing the wheel. So in the long run I believe it's a win/win/win solution for software companies, developers and end users. That's just how I see it though.
That's not counting companies looking for people who are good with linux as well. I guess it just depends on the perspective you put it in. For me though, the way I see it, the more open source solutions we have, the more likely it is that companies will need people who are knowledgeable about them. Hence also increasing potential employment.
Edit:
| This leads me to a question: Who really has instigated the concept of the open source community? For me, it seems naive to dispel of the fact that the corporate environment (who stood the most to gain) was responsible. |
I think Richard Stallman of the GNU project probably started it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
I think open source also promotes freedom of choice for the end users, so it's probably closer to democracy compared to communism.
| Open source does not seem to end with developers sharing knowledge and helping each other, it also promotes free software. |
Free software is always a good marketing strategy though in my opinion, because it increases your user base (that's why facebook is popular too because of the free games). Like in the previous "php being widely used" example, which in a way indirectly help create more jobs. It also helps companies reduce development costs, and if companies profit more it's less likely that they will go bankrupt which also prevents developers from losing their jobs. Companies can then focus development on "new stuff" for their users instead of reinventing the wheel. So in the long run I believe it's a win/win/win solution for software companies, developers and end users. That's just how I see it though.
Last edited on
| Companies can then focus development on "new stuff" for their users instead of reinventing the wheel. So in the long run I believe it's a win/win/win solution for software companies, developers and end users. That's just how I see it though. |
I think what KunjeeB is saying is will there come a day where ALL types of industries business needs can be handled using off-the-shelf OSS without further customization needed thereby leading to the extinction of the programmer professions.
I believe that day is still far away at least I won't get to see within my lifespan :P
Last edited on
In all fairness: compare MS Office versus Open Office. If you have both, I don't think anyone would choose OO over MSO. Does the lincense fee outweigh the hours wasted on working with worse spreadsheet software?
Yes, basic software needs can be fulfilled by OSS, but free doesn't always imply a good deal.
Yes, basic software needs can be fulfilled by OSS, but free doesn't always imply a good deal.
| ALL types of industries business needs can be handled using off-the-shelf OSS without further customization needed thereby leading to the extinction of the programmer professions. |
I don't think that's even remotely possible to be honest, unless if someone assumes that development of technology will stop completely. Development of technology leads to new developments in other fields. Just like if electronics wasn't developed then there won't be any computers. Let's take Apache web server for example, if there was no Apache then there would probably be no market for web-hosting servers and stuff (we probably even won't have web development nor the internet in fact). But since there is a market for them now, people have jobs.
I think since open source helps the development of new ideas and technologies then it is more likely to create newer specialized fields with new potential jobs offered. Just like how before all programs were pretty much console-based, and now it's mostly GUI. Once the new "big" thing comes out, the old stuff will be obsolete and there will always be more to do. Another example would be Ajax, where everyone seems to be trying to incorporate it in their own sites now.
Last edited on
PART #1
To be honest, if giving other programmers access to your source code isn't "sharing knowledge" and isn't "helping" then what is?
One could argue then that the failure is on the rest of the world rather than open source.
These 'products' all require expensive physical resources to duplicate. This is not true of software that can be duplicated free of charge. So there will never be a complete analogy with these kinds of comparison.
I don't think you have the correct analogies here.
If you are talking about groups who provide services utilising open source, then they almost all charge money for those services. IBM doesn't just give people free software, they offer to help the customers use that software. This "help" comes with a price.
A person has a choice in law to get a copy of the relevant laws and try to work out for themselves how best to proceed. Or they can hire a professional to deal with all the complex stuff they don't really understand.
This also happens with open source software. People can download and use open source software. However most people are not knowledgeable enough to make effective business use from it. They can't fix it if it breaks. They can't modify it to their specific requirements. They can't maintain their data accross version transitions.
For these things they pay professionals, much like a person might pay a lawyer to represent them in law.
I think you need to consider the difference between giving away a 'product' to an end user and giving away source code to another programmer. The two things are not equal. Regardless of how software is produced (either open or closed) there will always be customers who want to pay someone to help them manage and run their software.
Of course *some* people can do that themselves. These people can truly use open source software for free (as in beer). But you will also find that *some* people can run closed source software for free. They obtain *cracked* or 'security disabled' versions of the software and run them without any support.
But neither of the above change the potential BUSINESS uses that open and closed source software may be put to.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
Open source does not seem to end with developers sharing knowledge and helping each other, it also promotes free software. |
To be honest, if giving other programmers access to your source code isn't "sharing knowledge" and isn't "helping" then what is?
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
This concept of sharing and providing the world with software solutions and/or the means to achieve one's goals is excellent for the good of all mankind, but fails when you consider that the rest of the world does not operate like this. |
One could argue then that the failure is on the rest of the world rather than open source.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
To be more precise, we don't have similar concepts for "open source" medical services, "open source" plumbing, "open source" groceries, "open source" gardening, ... |
These 'products' all require expensive physical resources to duplicate. This is not true of software that can be duplicated free of charge. So there will never be a complete analogy with these kinds of comparison.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
Even though one may present certain professions where the concept might seem similar - like lawyers providing services pro bono - this is not at all on the same scale the IT community seems to be taking its "pro-bono" stance. |
I don't think you have the correct analogies here.
If you are talking about groups who provide services utilising open source, then they almost all charge money for those services. IBM doesn't just give people free software, they offer to help the customers use that software. This "help" comes with a price.
A person has a choice in law to get a copy of the relevant laws and try to work out for themselves how best to proceed. Or they can hire a professional to deal with all the complex stuff they don't really understand.
This also happens with open source software. People can download and use open source software. However most people are not knowledgeable enough to make effective business use from it. They can't fix it if it breaks. They can't modify it to their specific requirements. They can't maintain their data accross version transitions.
For these things they pay professionals, much like a person might pay a lawyer to represent them in law.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
ie, There are far fewer pro-bono lawyers or cases that law firms will do pro-bono as there are free software available. Big law firms will do pro-bonos out of a sense of duty (they have to) whereas open source development almost encourages one to give away your software for free passionately. |
I think you need to consider the difference between giving away a 'product' to an end user and giving away source code to another programmer. The two things are not equal. Regardless of how software is produced (either open or closed) there will always be customers who want to pay someone to help them manage and run their software.
Of course *some* people can do that themselves. These people can truly use open source software for free (as in beer). But you will also find that *some* people can run closed source software for free. They obtain *cracked* or 'security disabled' versions of the software and run them without any support.
But neither of the above change the potential BUSINESS uses that open and closed source software may be put to.
PART #2
I think that opening source code doesn't really change the true business model. It is and always was about charging for services rather than development time. The fact that some programmers share their work whereas other programmers do not may not affect the business as much as people think.
Also, I don't see the analogy with communism. Communism is a central dictatorship imposing a single solutions on everyone else.
Open Source is providing everyone with as much freedom of choice as possible.
Surely it is the Microsofts of this world that have come to dictate to everyone what format they must use in their text documents and their spreadsheets in their attempts to keep everyone following only their way of doing things?
If Microsoft had their way:
Everyone would run Windows.
Everyone would run Word.
Everyone would run MSN Messenger.
Everyone would run Internet Explorer.
So from where I am standing it is the Microsofts of this world that are trying to impose there own 'communism' on as many people as possible, denying them true freedom of choice and locking them in to only one supplier and therefore dictator.
I really think that this can't happen because business requires professional quality software. Therefore there will always be software professionals and business will pay them to keep the world running.
You should know that an awful lot of open source software is created by programmers being paid to make it by business that rely on it.
I don't think I entirely agree with your analogy between other professions and 'open source'. I think that programmers will always be paid to do open source development because business will always rely on open source software.
And I also think that open source is the better development model from a purely "technical" standpoint. Therefore I think ultimately most core 'infrastructure' software may one day be developed open source.
But there will always be people with money to pay programmers and software service providers to leverage the software 'infrastructure' to their business advantage.
In my opinion the community is simply smart people who like to share and cooperate. Now, some businesses are working within that community as members of it. They are utilising its power and by being givers and takers. The upshot is that a number of different companies cooperate on the basic development of core software and compete for customers when it comes to implementing working solutions and supporting their software requirements.
You might be surprised about who is and who is not getting paid. Also the more entrenched open source becomes, the more people actually do get paid.
Also consider that many open source programmers learned what they know from the open source community and by writing open source software. Through that they have managed to obtain the skills to get real paying jobs.
I rather suspect that is how the software industry is heading. A lot of 'infrastructure' software will be open source whereas those tweaks that provide a business edge will be kept as closed as possible. And even if they also are open, providing them will be a chargeable service.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
It is almost as if the IT community has been greatly encouraged to practice "communism" within their fields while the rest of society practices the opposing business model. |
I think that opening source code doesn't really change the true business model. It is and always was about charging for services rather than development time. The fact that some programmers share their work whereas other programmers do not may not affect the business as much as people think.
Also, I don't see the analogy with communism. Communism is a central dictatorship imposing a single solutions on everyone else.
Open Source is providing everyone with as much freedom of choice as possible.
Surely it is the Microsofts of this world that have come to dictate to everyone what format they must use in their text documents and their spreadsheets in their attempts to keep everyone following only their way of doing things?
If Microsoft had their way:
Everyone would run Windows.
Everyone would run Word.
Everyone would run MSN Messenger.
Everyone would run Internet Explorer.
So from where I am standing it is the Microsofts of this world that are trying to impose there own 'communism' on as many people as possible, denying them true freedom of choice and locking them in to only one supplier and therefore dictator.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
In a sense, if this trend was extrapolated to some point in the future, it would almost imply that IT will become a hobby (that ironically runs the rest of the world) while all other professions are deemed as real work. |
I really think that this can't happen because business requires professional quality software. Therefore there will always be software professionals and business will pay them to keep the world running.
You should know that an awful lot of open source software is created by programmers being paid to make it by business that rely on it.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
As said, the concept of sharing and helping each other is great, but it cannot be as one-sided as it currently is, if it is going to work. All other professions must come to the table as well! |
I don't think I entirely agree with your analogy between other professions and 'open source'. I think that programmers will always be paid to do open source development because business will always rely on open source software.
And I also think that open source is the better development model from a purely "technical" standpoint. Therefore I think ultimately most core 'infrastructure' software may one day be developed open source.
But there will always be people with money to pay programmers and software service providers to leverage the software 'infrastructure' to their business advantage.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
This leads me to a question: Who really has instigated the concept of the open source community? For me, it seems naive to dispel of the fact that the corporate environment (who stood the most to gain) was responsible. |
In my opinion the community is simply smart people who like to share and cooperate. Now, some businesses are working within that community as members of it. They are utilising its power and by being givers and takers. The upshot is that a number of different companies cooperate on the basic development of core software and compete for customers when it comes to implementing working solutions and supporting their software requirements.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
Currently at the company I work for, we do most of the development in-house - however we do use some open source solutions for a few non core systems. Somebody developed this open source solution and didn't really get paid for it properly. The corporates at my company are very chuffed that there are such nice people out there who would help them get richer for free :) |
You might be surprised about who is and who is not getting paid. Also the more entrenched open source becomes, the more people actually do get paid.
Also consider that many open source programmers learned what they know from the open source community and by writing open source software. Through that they have managed to obtain the skills to get real paying jobs.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
As mentioned, I work in the financial sector of development, so my skill set isn't one worth flaunting on the open source community, but I do have friends working in the scientific R&D sector of development and their attitudes are: we will share and help with certain things (basic standard concepts), but are reluctant to share skills and concepts that would illustrate exactly how they perform their "magic" in certain cases due to the argument presented above. |
I rather suspect that is how the software industry is heading. A lot of 'infrastructure' software will be open source whereas those tweaks that provide a business edge will be kept as closed as possible. And even if they also are open, providing them will be a chargeable service.
It's the dream/goal of every company to see every possible user use their products/services. As it should be. It doesn't make sense to aim for anything else.
It's the means by which this accomplished that shape the market and your impact on the world. Taking unfair/illegal and cutthroat competition out of the story for a minute, I would conclude that "offering quality products at affordable prices" (MS) isn't any different than "offering lesser quality products for free". Neither is better, but it is the availability of both that makes both work. Can you imagine a world without non-OSS? If I had to choose between OSS-only or no OSS at all, I'd definitely wave goodbye to OSS.
It's the means by which this accomplished that shape the market and your impact on the world. Taking unfair/illegal and cutthroat competition out of the story for a minute, I would conclude that "offering quality products at affordable prices" (MS) isn't any different than "offering lesser quality products for free". Neither is better, but it is the availability of both that makes both work. Can you imagine a world without non-OSS? If I had to choose between OSS-only or no OSS at all, I'd definitely wave goodbye to OSS.
| KunjeeB wrote: |
|---|
I agree that it is a rewarding feeling to develop something in your spare time and flog it to the open source market where it is greatly used, however - if sufficient amount of such developers start coming about then we may have a situation where the corporates start realizing that 70~80% of the software their company needs is out their for free and so downsize their IT departments accordingly - eventually there are much fewer IT jobs available so makes it very hard for me and you to eat and have a roof over our heads. |
I don't think I agree with you at all. In my experience, the more software a company uses, the more IT people they need to keep it all up and running. Free software can only increase companies reliance on an IT department who will install it, upgrade it and fix it when it breaks.
Furthermore, regarding developers. Companies will pay to have software that works reliably. Therefore there will always be money to be made by professional programmers. True business software needs to be 'engineered' and can not be knocked up by 'any old' hobbyist. It requires a particularly talented hobbyist!
And frankly, if there were to be a glut of technically adept programmers then this would have the same negative impact on programmers in general regardless of the development model (open or closed), just as it would negatively impact any other profession.
Imagine what too many qualified doctors would do to how much doctors get paid?
The truth is it takes a lot of time and hard work to become a programmer of merit (hobbyist or otherwise) therefore I would imagine that there will always be a demand for them.
Last edited on
I would also like to say that the reason why people are worried about 'open source' causing problems in the IT industry is because companies like Microsoft are promoting that idea.
But if you think about it, it is not hobbyist's who are becoming a competitive threat to Microsoft. Hobby programmers would not very likely develop software to compete with Microsoft.
The people who are a competitive threat to Microsoft are other companies. These companies have only been able to challenge Microsoft by cooperating with one another, and that cooperation has only been made possible through open source development.
If you look at any piece of 'open source' software that is some kind of threat to Microsoft, then I think you will find that Microsoft's competitors are paying programmers to write it.
So the real problem with open source for Microsoft is that it has enabled a bunch of smaller, non-threatening competitors to collectively threaten their business.
I don't believe that open source software will ever do harm to business in general, but it may certainly threaten make it hard for monopolistic companies like Microsoft to maintain their grip.
This can only be a good thing imho.
The bottom line is that there will always be companies that can benefit from software and they will always pay good money to people who can provide that.
However, open source may make it harder for any one company to gain control over all the others.
Remember, if people stop paying programmers, then people stop learning how to program. Then the world falls apart. But the world will NOT fall apart. Businesses will dig deep into their wallets before watching the very people who make their businesses run wander off to do something more lucrative.
| Remember, if people stop paying programmers, then people stop learning how to program. |
I doubt this very much. It's an art. A lot of people learn it because it's fun.
Gaminic, yes, programming is very fun for some people. I personally enjoy the puzzle feeling and the logic.
| I think you need to consider the difference between giving away a 'product' to an end user and giving away source code to another programmer. The two things are not equal. Regardless of how software is produced (either open or closed) there will always be customers who want to pay someone to help them manage and run their software. |
As mentioned before - I undrstand that one cannot compare apples to apples is this case, but am comparing the cultures/attitudes of the individuals within the different fields. What is the response to the fact where certain implementations by other fields were ommitted for the pure sake of keeping their fields lucrative for themselves but at the expense of improving overall life for humanity - the fact that cannibus is still not used in the medical industry as outlined earlier or other great inventions that would havel liberated humantity in certain ways. What about these - I would argue that if the same mindset existed within those other fields as in the OSS community, they would have long ago implemented what would have been best for mankind and not only what is best for themselves.
| I don't think I agree with you at all. In my experience, the more software a company uses, the more IT people they need to keep it all up and running. Free software can only increase companies reliance on an IT department who will install it, upgrade it and fix it when it breaks. |
Part of the goals of software development is that we create software that is easy to use and very easy to maintain. If this is what developers are aiming for then they will eventually hit the target or coe very, very close. This could then imply that the free software that becomes available works could be extremely easy to setup and install, be very robust and require almost zero maintenance.
If this occurs then companies will not need that many if not any IT developers to maintain their software.
| But there will always be people with money to pay programmers and software service providers to leverage the software 'infrastructure' to their business advantage. |
This may be true in some cases, but looking at the overall picture, we note that most companies try to downsize if they can - so if there primary business model is satisfied, they are hapy to proceed without much extras.
I've had the opportunity to get a tour of one of the branches a very, very successfull companies factory. This one branches (which was the smallest one in the smallest city) made a few millions as profit a day with a range of products that virtually sells extremely high volumes of itself. They have a surprisingly large IT infrusture i.t.o process controlling their various machines, but only one person handling IT development (level 2) and one person handling PLC development (level 1) and one person for networking and os administrator.
Most other companies in that country aim to implement components of this particular organisations business model in their structure so as to be as successfull.
This companies attitude is that they will only change software if it really becomes outdated and cannot find hardware viable for it anymore.
This does not reflect the "care" for IT in the sense we would have hoped for.
Remember - these (general all other fields) are the same people who would not do things to benefit humanity when they are presented opportunities, if it implies some loss to their bottom line.
| I don't think that's even remotely possible to be honest, unless if someone assumes that development of technology will stop completely. Development of technology leads to new developments in other fields. Just like if electronics wasn't developed then there won't be any computers. Let's take Apache web server for example, if there was no Apache then there would probably be no market for web-hosting servers and stuff (we probably even won't have web development nor the internet in fact). But since there is a market for them now, people have jobs. |
There may very well be other new technologies developed which sparks more jobs - but what sohguanh is saying is: Currently many developers resides within other fields doing it development for them. If these fields dry up - will there be enough new technolgies developed to secure jobs for all the developers left out in the cold. If the rate of new technolgies don't match or exceed the rate at which the other side of the equation downsizes then we will have developers out in the cold. One also need to consider saturation of requirements for apps even within the fb domain.
| I believe that day is still far away at least I won't get to see within my lifespan :P |
I was told by a salesman way back in the early 90s when I was in school and buying my first 286 AT that I would never fill a 40 megabyte hard drive in my lifetime :) hahaha
The mindset is very very different nowadays.
| If these fields dry up - will there be enough new technolgies developed to secure jobs for all the developers left out in the cold. If the rate of new technolgies don't match or exceed the rate at which the other side of the equation downsizes then we will have developers out in the cold. |
Well if you look through history, technology actually advances exponentially. From electricity we got the telephone, television, radios, electronics then computers and etc. From computers we got operating systems, databases, networking, programming, the internet. From the internet we got web development, mmorpgs, cloud computing and much more. So what I mean is technology advances in a tree-like structure so I don't really believe that there will be any question about whether the rate of technology will match or exceed the rate of downsizes. I'm not sure what new technologies the future will bring, but just like people say, history repeats itself.
There is also another invalid assumption with the views you have about down-sizing though if you don't mind me saying. I come from a family of entrepreneurs, my grandfather was a businessman, all my uncles and aunts have businesses, my mother and father have businesses too, and I hope to one day have my own as well. The truth of the matter is, people are the most important part of any business, and the idea that eventually a company would just download OSS solutions and not hire anyone just doesn't make sense from a business perspective. Why is this so? Well for one, the job of the owner is to decide which direction to take his company to, but for a business to run you need people for operations. An owner wouldn't do the operations himself unless there is no other option, because honestly it's a huge waste of time. The time someone puts into maintaining software, can be used to close huge deals instead, or you can use the free time to play golf too or something. :P
So the main point here is the convenience and time one can save. People are naturally lazy in my opinion that's why making something convenient for them is always good business. Like I could fix my car for free myself, but it's much more convenient to just take it to a repair shop especially if I can afford it.
So in the end, it's not really about how much a company can save, but if they can afford it. Down-sizing usually only comes into question when the economy is bad or if the company is in some trouble and has a possibility of going bankrupt. However, if what you said is true about companies getting rich over OSS, then there shouldn't be any reason not to hire professionals especially if they can afford it. So that's why I think it's really a next to impossible scenario if you ask me. That's just how I see it though.
I am surprised this thread is still going on but my take is with more OSS, it will not eliminate programmer profession. What it does is it will allow employers to employ lesser but more competent programmers to maintain their business specific system with OSS and in-house. The profession will still be around but the expectation of programmers will rise up as now employers can say this component is already available from some OSS, we can just use it and then retrofit my business specific logic onto it. I will still need programmer but they will need to deliver the deliverable faster since certain components would have been filled up using OSS.
So from programmer aka employee perspective, you need to do fast and yet at the same time maintain the quality. More pressure will be on the programmer shoulders. And for those less competent programmers who fail to make the cut will be out of job.
Conclusion:
OSS has an impact on programmer profession in the long run. It will not make the programmer profession extinct but it will raise the standard/expectation within the profession. Only those capable to make the date-line with quality output will be recruited.
So from programmer aka employee perspective, you need to do fast and yet at the same time maintain the quality. More pressure will be on the programmer shoulders. And for those less competent programmers who fail to make the cut will be out of job.
Conclusion:
OSS has an impact on programmer profession in the long run. It will not make the programmer profession extinct but it will raise the standard/expectation within the profession. Only those capable to make the date-line with quality output will be recruited.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 12