Comments on: The Illusion of Free Software http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/ Software Engineer, Designer and Photographer in Suriname Tue, 15 May 2012 08:10:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Gamigin http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-167 Gamigin Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:14:31 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-167 "You should be able to see why Schwartz?s statements are misleading. It?s misleading because people can be tricked into thinking Sun, for example, has an advantage because their software is free compared to competitors who charge for licenses upfront." I really don't see how you can accuse Sun of misleading people on this. Their licensing policies are very well publicized. You even quoted him discussing license fees. I've worked with IT organizations who've used and Sun products (some paid for various products and others didn't) and I've never heard an actual client of Sun who felt mislead or manipulated. I'm not saying that they are saints or all their products are golden or anything like that but I don't see them being a particularly manipulative or deceptive company. “You should be able to see why Schwartz?s statements are misleading. It?s misleading because people can be tricked into thinking Sun, for example, has an advantage because their software is free compared to competitors who charge for licenses upfront.”

I really don’t see how you can accuse Sun of misleading people on this. Their licensing policies are very well publicized. You even quoted him discussing license fees. I’ve worked with IT organizations who’ve used and Sun products (some paid for various products and others didn’t) and I’ve never heard an actual client of Sun who felt mislead or manipulated.

I’m not saying that they are saints or all their products are golden or anything like that but I don’t see them being a particularly manipulative or deceptive company.

]]> By: Virgil http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-166 Virgil Wed, 12 Oct 2005 03:35:36 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-166 Straw Man Straw Man

]]> By: Les http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-165 Les Wed, 12 Oct 2005 03:05:40 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-165 I understand the point you're trying to make with your article though I'm not entirely certain I understand what it is you're trying to warn people about. Granted "common sense" isn't as common as it probably should be, but most folks seem to be aware of the fact that few things in life are truly free. Sure, someone is paying Google to stay in business in exchange for the ads that show up when people are checking their emails or using the search engines, but the beauty of Google is the fact that their ads are so unintrusive that I can ignore them just fine much the same way I ignore 95% of the ads that show up on my television. For some folks those ads are useful and they click on them and that makes advertising on Google useful for the advertisers which allows me to enjoy the service without spending a dime on it myself. Not truly free, but free enough to earn my patronage. Same is true with the OpenSolaris. As long as I'm knowledgeable enough to work with the software without purchasing a support contract then it's free for me. The fact that corporations may be paying for a support contract for the 'free' software doesn't really change the fact that they didn't have to pay for the software itself in the first place. They'd be paying for similar support contracts for anything Microsoft puts out as well in addition to the cost of the software to begin with. The simple truth is people need to read the fine print to be sure they understand how the "free" offer is being paid for. With cell phones, for example, you're usually signing up for a year or more contract. As long as you don't have a problem with the terms and can stick to them then you're getting a deal even if it's not truly free. I understand the point you’re trying to make with your article though I’m not entirely certain I understand what it is you’re trying to warn people about. Granted “common sense” isn’t as common as it probably should be, but most folks seem to be aware of the fact that few things in life are truly free.

Sure, someone is paying Google to stay in business in exchange for the ads that show up when people are checking their emails or using the search engines, but the beauty of Google is the fact that their ads are so unintrusive that I can ignore them just fine much the same way I ignore 95% of the ads that show up on my television. For some folks those ads are useful and they click on them and that makes advertising on Google useful for the advertisers which allows me to enjoy the service without spending a dime on it myself. Not truly free, but free enough to earn my patronage.

Same is true with the OpenSolaris. As long as I’m knowledgeable enough to work with the software without purchasing a support contract then it’s free for me. The fact that corporations may be paying for a support contract for the ‘free’ software doesn’t really change the fact that they didn’t have to pay for the software itself in the first place. They’d be paying for similar support contracts for anything Microsoft puts out as well in addition to the cost of the software to begin with.

The simple truth is people need to read the fine print to be sure they understand how the “free” offer is being paid for. With cell phones, for example, you’re usually signing up for a year or more contract. As long as you don’t have a problem with the terms and can stick to them then you’re getting a deal even if it’s not truly free.

]]> By: Allen Varney http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-164 Allen Varney Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:08:53 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-164 If this isn't "an attack on OSS software," then it's a colossally ill-conceived phrasing to lambaste "free software" -- the term of choice for GNU/Linux, the Free Software Foundation, and open-source advocates -- without ever once distinguishing it from freedom/OS software. Pardon me while I prepare a post attacking "Idiotic Blog Posts." What? --Nonono, I'm not calling YOUR blog post idiotic, what on Earth could ever give you such an idea? That's just silly. If this isn’t “an attack on OSS software,” then it’s a colossally ill-conceived phrasing to lambaste “free software” — the term of choice for GNU/Linux, the Free Software Foundation, and open-source advocates — without ever once distinguishing it from freedom/OS software.

Pardon me while I prepare a post attacking “Idiotic Blog Posts.” What? –Nonono, I’m not calling YOUR blog post idiotic, what on Earth could ever give you such an idea? That’s just silly.

]]> By: Karel Donk http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-163 Karel Donk Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:16:51 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-163 If you view my comments as an attack on open source you're missing the point. It's not an attack on open source. So I'm not backpedaling simply because I wasn't even pedaling in either direction on OSS. :P This is just about those people trying to mislead others with "free" software. Free as in: You don't have to pay anything, when clearly you're going to have to if you want any kind of guarantees. If you view my comments as an attack on open source you’re missing the point. It’s not an attack on open source. So I’m not backpedaling simply because I wasn’t even pedaling in either direction on OSS. :P
This is just about those people trying to mislead others with “free” software. Free as in: You don’t have to pay anything, when clearly you’re going to have to if you want any kind of guarantees.

]]> By: Ed http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-162 Ed Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:50:52 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-162 I see you backpedaled on "free as in freedom", which is really what OSS is all about, but even your "free as in beer" argument is wrong. A lot of people give away their improvements to OSS projects (after having invested their time and energy) for free. The reasons are various, but you can indeed get OSS "for free" thanks to the cooperative environment that people _naturally_ want to participate in since they derive more benefit than the cost of their investment in improving whatever features they have the skills and incentive to improve. We all win by sharing. I see you backpedaled on “free as in freedom”, which is really what OSS is all about, but even your “free as in beer” argument is wrong. A lot of people give away their improvements to OSS projects (after having invested their time and energy) for free. The reasons are various, but you can indeed get OSS “for free” thanks to the cooperative environment that people _naturally_ want to participate in since they derive more benefit than the cost of their investment in improving whatever features they have the skills and incentive to improve. We all win by sharing.

]]> By: Sam Owens http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-161 Sam Owens Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:03:56 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-161 This sounds like someone sat around, made a posit then tried to prove it. It's a bunch of hooey. Free to me is what's free. Sam This sounds like someone sat around, made a posit then tried to prove it. It’s a bunch of hooey.

Free to me is what’s free.

Sam

]]> By: Culprit http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-160 Culprit Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:29:15 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-160 :roll: I guess all that "free" software I get from sourceforge.net is gonna put me into debt some day soon. :lol: The only costs I pay with most of the free software I use, comes from the tiny bit of bandwidth I use to download it. If you do not have the knowledge to use the software, then it will cost you to educate yourself in its use. You can of course pay someone else to help you with your software. Now if you click on "free" screensavers and other malware-laden "freeware," there are definitely costs of ownership you will be paying. :roll:
I guess all that “free” software I get from sourceforge.net is gonna put me into debt some day soon.
:lol:

The only costs I pay with most of the free software I use, comes from the tiny bit of bandwidth I use to download it. If you do not have the knowledge to use the software, then it will cost you to educate yourself in its use. You can of course pay someone else to help you with your software. Now if you click on “free” screensavers and other malware-laden “freeware,” there are definitely costs of ownership you will be paying.

]]> By: Reason http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-159 Reason Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:44:45 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-159 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

]]> By: Karel Donk http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-158 Karel Donk Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:40:40 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-158 Gamigin, my example of Sun still stands. You should be able to see why Schwartz's statements are misleading. It's misleading because people can be tricked into thinking Sun, for example, has an advantage because their software is free compared to competitors who charge for licenses upfront. But if you would compare those two business models, you'd see that it's basically the same thing in the end, you just pay money for the software and/or to be able to use it. Gamigin, my example of Sun still stands. You should be able to see why Schwartz’s statements are misleading. It’s misleading because people can be tricked into thinking Sun, for example, has an advantage because their software is free compared to competitors who charge for licenses upfront. But if you would compare those two business models, you’d see that it’s basically the same thing in the end, you just pay money for the software and/or to be able to use it.

]]> By: Gamigin http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-157 Gamigin Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:19:25 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-157 "Just remember: Somewhere, somehow, someone is always paying." That's really extremely obvious. No one looks at a for-profit company with heavily traded stock and high paid CEOs and doesn't think they are trying to make money. It's ridiculous to claim that companies such as Sun or MySQL are trying to fool people about this. They very openly discuss their plans to make money and stay profitable. That's a very common point of discussion as well. The point of OSS is NOT that everything is 100% free and no one ever has to pay money. The main reason that most for-profit companies use OSS is ease of adoption, friendly licensing terms, and increased innovation and widespread support. No one who buys a support contract with Sun or RedHat or MySQL was fooled into doing so any more than people are fooled into buying anything else. No one is fooled into thinking that everything was 100% free. That's absolute nonsense. This sounds like the "insight" of someone who is very new to the industry. “Just remember: Somewhere, somehow, someone is always paying.”

That’s really extremely obvious. No one looks at a for-profit company with heavily traded stock and high paid CEOs and doesn’t think they are trying to make money. It’s ridiculous to claim that companies such as Sun or MySQL are trying to fool people about this. They very openly discuss their plans to make money and stay profitable. That’s a very common point of discussion as well.

The point of OSS is NOT that everything is 100% free and no one ever has to pay money. The main reason that most for-profit companies use OSS is ease of adoption, friendly licensing terms, and increased innovation and widespread support.

No one who buys a support contract with Sun or RedHat or MySQL was fooled into doing so any more than people are fooled into buying anything else. No one is fooled into thinking that everything was 100% free. That’s absolute nonsense.

This sounds like the “insight” of someone who is very new to the industry.

]]> By: Karel Donk http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-156 Karel Donk Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:27:20 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-156 Thanks for your response Fernando. You're mistakenly assuming that I am confusing the OSS free with the no cost free. I'm not. You should give the article another good read. All the examples I used were clearly about the no cost free. FYI, I have absolutely no problems with OSS. What I have a problem with, is people using it to fool others into thinking the software is free, as in, no cost free, and misleading them into thinking they don't have to pay anything to use it, while clearly the real costs of that "free" software come when you start using it. Just look at my Sun/Schwartz example. Did you even read that part? That's where you really should have laughed. Plus, I'm not a MS fanboy. But I understand why you may think so. Thanks for your spelling corrections. Thanks for your response Fernando. You’re mistakenly assuming that I am confusing the OSS free with the no cost free. I’m not. You should give the article another good read. All the examples I used were clearly about the no cost free.
FYI, I have absolutely no problems with OSS. What I have a problem with, is people using it to fool others into thinking the software is free, as in, no cost free, and misleading them into thinking they don’t have to pay anything to use it, while clearly the real costs of that “free” software come when you start using it. Just look at my Sun/Schwartz example. Did you even read that part? That’s where you really should have laughed.

Plus, I’m not a MS fanboy. But I understand why you may think so.
Thanks for your spelling corrections.

]]> By: Fernando Cassia http://blog.kareldonk.com/the-illusion-of-free-software/#comment-155 Fernando Cassia Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:16:49 +0000 http://blog.kareldonk.com/?p=60#comment-155 I had a good laugh reading this. All that babbling ... just to make people skeptic of... what... free software?. The key here is free as in FREEDOM not free as in "no price". Look at the success of the APACHE WEB SERVER, still powering the majority of the web sites on the net according to the latest Netcraft survey. You can get the ?free?(= no cost) version, or you can get a customized/branded version from IBM (IBM HTTPD web server) with additional plug-ins and 24/7 tech support. The model works. The same applies with Linux. You can choose to go "totally free" (ie leech a UBUNTU or Debian from the Net), or you can PURCHASE A COMMERCIAL DISTRO (I choose to pay $75 to Sun for Java Desktop System R2, most prefer SUSE or LINSPIRE). Thus, they pay for tech support or the ability to have patches installed. What's wrong with that? NOTHING OF COURSE. Want another example? The government of Buenos Aires city built a city map that rivals Google Map in ease of use and features, built on top of entirely open source software: http://mapa.buenosaires.gov.ar Would I have preferred they spent thousands of my tax dollars to purchase a closed, proprietary solution? Of course not!. This way, the knowledge they gained in this development can be used by others, and thousands of dollars have been saved by re-using existing knowledge, like knowledge is re-used in libraries and schools around the world on a daily basis. Only someone either too naive (or a Microsoft fanboy with an anti-OSS agenda like it seems to be your case) or too biased goes to the length you have gone to write a negative-headline story on FOSS software. Just my $0.02 Fernando PS: Learn to spell, it's "lose" not "loose". I had a good laugh reading this. All that babbling … just to make people skeptic of… what… free software?. The key here is free as in FREEDOM not free as in “no price”. Look at the success of the APACHE WEB SERVER, still powering the majority of the web sites on the net according to the latest Netcraft survey.

You can get the ?free?(= no cost) version, or you can get a customized/branded version from IBM (IBM HTTPD web server) with additional plug-ins and 24/7 tech support. The model works.

The same applies with Linux. You can choose to go “totally free” (ie leech a UBUNTU or Debian from the Net), or you can PURCHASE A COMMERCIAL DISTRO (I choose to pay $75 to Sun for Java Desktop System R2, most prefer SUSE or LINSPIRE). Thus, they pay for tech support or the ability to have patches installed. What’s wrong with that? NOTHING OF COURSE.

Want another example? The government of Buenos Aires city built a city map that rivals Google Map in ease of use and features, built on top of entirely open source software:
http://mapa.buenosaires.gov.ar

Would I have preferred they spent thousands of my tax dollars to purchase a closed, proprietary solution? Of course not!. This way, the knowledge they gained in this development can be used by others, and thousands of dollars have been saved by re-using existing knowledge, like knowledge is re-used in libraries and schools around the world on a daily basis.

Only someone either too naive (or a Microsoft fanboy with an anti-OSS agenda like it seems to be your case) or too biased goes to the length you have gone to write a negative-headline story on FOSS software.

Just my $0.02
Fernando
PS: Learn to spell, it’s “lose” not “loose”.

]]>