[TriLUG] Where is Linux today?

[Maxwell Spangler]

On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 20:15 -0400, Cristóbal Palmer wrote:
> So, how's this for a summary of where most people on the list stand:
> "I like as much free software as I can get, and when it's reasonably
> convenient (eg. in the context of a file server), I'll go ALL FREE. If
> it's going to mean any personal investment of energy, though, I'd
> rather buy and put up with some closed software." Is that a fair
> characterization?

No.

The benefits of Free and Open source software are both short and long
term.  The short term benefits like zero cost, downloadable software,
openness and opportunities to modify the software to suit ones needs are
immediately rewarding.  The long term benefits such as no recurring
licensing costs, no forced upgrades, and general avoidance of other
problems with commercial software are all potential rewards that are not
fully realized until time passes.

A start-up company developing critical software might want to take the
Free or Open route because it puts them more in control of the software
foundation they will be using to develop their own software.  Their
requirements are long term so Free software's long term rewards are
compelling.

But for individuals buying a laptop that may only be expected to last
between 2 and 5 years before being replaced and only serving one's own
needs, the short term rewards are likely to outweigh the long term
potential rewards.  A Mac laptop with attractive hardware, an easy to
learn and simple to maintain operating environment with commercial
software applications becomes very compelling.

Simply put, it's not about the politics when thinking short term, its
about all the other stuff combined.  Some of that stuff -- like the new,
fresh and cool interface of the iPhone -- is so compelling that it makes
us forget the long term concerns.  It's perfectly acceptable to do so:
This is just consumers being consumer in an open marketplace.

> what happens
> when big companies like Microsoft are able to change the legal
> landscape to add inconveniences that tilt your rational, economic
> calculus? You now have to pay $5 where you had to spend nothing before
> to get the same functionality. But $5 is nothing. What about $50?
> $100? What's your price? At what point does it stop being an
> inconvenience and start being a matter of principle or emotion?

As long as the marketplace stays open to competition, this shouldn't be
a [significant] problem.

If you believe, as I do, in classic economics then the market will
balance out what companies want to charge and what consumers are willing
to pay.  This will prevent companies from over charging although it may
not be a quick or painless process.

I don't want to argue economics, especially when I agree with the
positive opinion of Free Software that you have and are trying to
promote.  Economic impact is one factor of computing to consider but I
think it will be kept in control under existing market forces.

Legal issues such as patents are a much bigger problem than economics.
One patent in the wrong hands could ruin your ability to choose and
break those market forces causing you to be stuck paying for low
quality, something that isn't supposed to be acceptable in capitalism.

I enjoy these discussions because they should remind all of us that if
we want Free Software (including Linux) to stay relevant and reach its
potential, it has to compete vigorously on many factors, not just the
political ones.