What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
24 Comments
- joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Perhaps the companies making these products sell tech support along with it? I mean just a thought, but perhaps that's kinda how alot of open source projects work, it's free, but in a corporate environment especially, somebody is still getting paid to make sure it keeps running solidly. Some have corporate sponsorships as well, take Sun's involvment in openoffice for example. Although that kinda is a blend between the two since they sell staroffice as well...
So, basically there's something YOU don't know about this. - int19h, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9With free software, you can choose to help yourself. With free support and no software, you can choose to... get support.
- raseel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Nobody is giving away Software for Free.
Its just that the software is Open Sourced.
There is a world of difference between the two. - tuxedup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Just because they distribute the source doesn't mean they cannot make a profit as a business. Anyway as I understand it the GPL and other Open Sources Licences say you don't have to give the source away free of charage, you just have to make it available.
Even if these companies did give the source away free of charge that changes nothing. The majority of businesses using this software would want it in a binary format for what ever distribution they were using e.g. Red Hat Enterprise. They may use the source if it is something mission critical and needs to be highly optimised for the hardware because of the load it will receive.
But as a previous poster said, a lot of Open Source companies sell support along side there products, regardless of wether they give the software away Free of charge, give the source away free of charage, or charge for the source of application.
Just because software is called Free Software does not mean you cannot charage for the software (Cost has nothing to do with it), you only have to make the source available (Free or charaged for). - MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Open-source doesn't mean that it's "free", in either sense of the word. It doesn't mean that you don't have to pay for it, and it doesn't mean that you can modify it, and it doesn't mean that anyone can distribute it. It just means that certain people, like clients of these companies, can see uncompiled versions of the source code.
What allows software to be "free" is the license. The GPL, for example, allows for modification and distribution without compensation, but with accreditation, and the guarantee that the code stays open. - muddo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most of you are are ill informed. Those of you that state that giving away software is going to kill a business model where the main product is software.
Even Bill Gates has stated that as the internet evolves, selling software is going to become an obsolete business model. Distributing software as part of a service is the business model of the future. Anyone in the know knows this.
Look at Google. - mindsocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Umm, companies, by definition, employ people. That is, pay money for a service. What "Technopundit" isn't aware of this, and that open source does not equate to a totally "free as in beer" business model?
- tuxedup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As far as I am aware Redhat make all there code available at no cost, hence how CentOS came about, you just cannot use the Redhat artwork in your product.
Just because the company distributes the source does not mean that the developers are working for free. The community contributers wont get paid, but the in house developers will most certainly get paid. - mindsocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@tuxedup. The GPL specifies that you must make the source code available for FREE (well, no more than the physical cost of distribution).
- mindsocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can. Ubuntu is a distribution, not a company.
Canonical is the company behind it, and it's reasonable to expect them on the list, but the opening paragraph of the article suggests a more narrow focus on some of the lesser known ones. - tuxedup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2chris9902 what free support have you received from Microsoft? The last I heard any support from Microsoft costs some serious ££££. Just to get telephone help is stupidly expensive.
- VinnyLingham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I cannot believe that Ubuntu did not make this list!
- porkrind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You are the weakest link. This will shed some light for you: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2006/01/12/no_oss_community.html
- porkrind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Most companies with open source follow a hybrid model - the stuff that everyone else has they give away, and they sell the "icing on the cake"... or creamy filling, whichever analogy floats your boat. To get a sense of what is fueling open source growth, read my article: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2006/01/12/no_oss_community.html
- jazzyy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1i dont think developers are going to work for free. you work for souces that you make available for public viewing. You can choose to charge for your "free" sources or make available at a cost. The important difference red hat and Microsoft is that Microsoft charges you for something that you never ever get to see or modify whereas red hat may charge you for such privileges
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"With free software, you can choose to help yourself. With free support and no software, you can choose to... get support."
Demand for support is nowhere near as high as demand for the software. And with costs for support, no less, it will go even lower. - i440, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"the in house developers will most certainly get paid."
I'm just concerned that it won't be as much as it currently is. Corel's profitability increased after they stopped it's open source software. Who's to say that won't happen for every other company? - porkrind, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Hyperic has over 30 :@)
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3so Mircosoft charge for there product but provide free support. Linux give there software away but charge for help.
how is this different? - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3So now developers are expected to work for free? Remember this, all you up-and-coming Computer Science majors.
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1I'm sure both customers of each company are quite thrilled about this
- vips161178, on 10/12/2007, -12/+0dfgfg
- vips161178, on 10/12/2007, -12/+0sfsdfsdf
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2I don't understand who would invest millions in a software company who give there software away for free?
how are they making money? there's something we don't know about all this...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is