On CBS MoneyWatch: Report: Tiger to Pay Wife $60 Million
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 75:
Next »
Customers vs. vendors
It's obvious why a professional programmer likes the proprietary model. It's the only model proven time and again to guarantee a return on investment, assuming of course the product is useful to enough people. The downside of this model is that it does place heavy restrictions on the user.

And it's obvious why users of software would prefer the free source model. It has no restrictions on them. The only restrictions are placed on the distributor, which usually happens to also be the programmer, which limits how income can be generated. Now if income can be generated in other areas besides distribution of the code (support, hardware or other physical goods, etc.) then the free source model can work out in the end for both sides. It's when the distributor/programmer has nothing else to offer other than the code itself that income generation becomes the most serious issue.

RMS imagines a world in which programmers will receive compensation for their efforts in a fair manner. Because you won't have to keep reinventing the wheel (which proprietary software does constantly) you can move onto bigger and better things, which will be funded in one way or another by those who would benefit the most. Proprietary fans see the world as it is, a greedy place that will rob you blind so you'd better beat them at their own game if you want to succeed. And because the proprietary model gives the programmer more power in the world than the free source programmer who relies on a benefactor (or a bunch of them) they are the ones who are in the limelight, they have adequate funding to do research and get patents and stuff their pockets even further, all while only advancing technology just as much as they need to in order to stave off their proprietary competitors.

The free source model benefits the user in the long run, while the proprietary model benefits the profit minded programmer. Right now proprietary rules the roost because thus far they have produced the most usable software. They also have the law on their side with regards to patents. However, as more and more restrictions are placed on proprietary software, it becomes less and less useful to the user. So those who are fans of the proprietary model need to keep that in mind, because as long as most people do not feel restricted by their proprietary software, they will choose quality over freedom, because the freedoms they are relinquishing are not important to them. However as proprietary companies start moving in on the freedoms that customers do care about (good example, Apple restricting iPhone users to AT&T service) more people will care, and more people will be choosing freedom over quality.
Posted by: Michael Kelly   Posted on: 09/13/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Customers vs. vendors  Michael Kelly | 09/13/07
Most users will never look at the code.  Anton Philidor | 09/13/07
"responsible for maintenance"  Anton Philidor | 09/13/07
It's not so much that the customer needs to see the code  Michael Kelly | 09/13/07
The market should be the "backup plan".  Anton Philidor | 09/13/07
That's fine when you don't have any data to port  Michael Kelly | 09/14/07
Should read:  Michael Kelly | 09/14/07
A third-party made tools to migrate...  Anton Philidor | 09/14/07
Lock-in, Middleware  filker0 | 09/14/07
Trapped by advantages.  Anton Philidor | 09/14/07
You are correct  John L. Ries | 09/13/07
Re: Customers vs. Vendors  John Carroll ZDNet Moderator | 09/13/07
I don't deny the profit motive  Michael Kelly | 09/13/07
good example, Apple restricting iPhone users  Ole Man | 09/14/07
Could be healthier  voska | 09/13/07
Why could seeing the source be bad?  doodlius | 09/13/07
Not the same at all  rapson | 09/13/07
Protecting your copyright is fine and dandy  Michael Kelly | 09/14/07
Two approaches  rapson | 09/14/07
Re: Two approaches  none none | 09/14/07
Distinction  Anton Philidor | 09/13/07
Your crock is running over again......  linux for me | 09/13/07
Hypothetical situations.  Anton Philidor | 09/13/07
"let's further postulate"  Ole Man | 09/14/07
Exactly.  Anton Philidor | 09/14/07
Too far out to postulate on  Ole Man | 09/15/07
Constancy of light speed  John L. Ries | 09/14/07
Why Proprietary Software Exists  filker0 | 09/14/07
Regarding open source  John Carroll ZDNet Moderator | 09/13/07
Then what is the proper response?  Anton Philidor | 09/13/07
People who think...  John L. Ries | 09/13/07
A clarification  Robert Crocker | 09/13/07
Yes, in-house development exists.  Anton Philidor | 09/13/07
Moralism  John L. Ries | 09/13/07
What is a personal attack?  Anton Philidor | 09/13/07
I didn't say...  John Carroll ZDNet Moderator | 09/13/07
What I suggest  John L. Ries | 09/13/07
I've done that any number of times  John Carroll ZDNet Moderator | 09/13/07
All you've really done...  John L. Ries | 09/13/07
PKB  Yagotta B. Kidding | 09/14/07
RE: Richard Stallman the creationist  Caesar Tjalbo | 09/13/07
right on the money so to say  daMan25 | 09/13/07
/A Priori/  Yagotta B. Kidding | 09/13/07
Conflating arguments.  Anton Philidor | 09/13/07
I think red pants are immoral  John Carroll ZDNet Moderator | 09/13/07
Then don't wear them...  John L. Ries | 09/13/07
But...  John Carroll ZDNet Moderator | 09/13/07
Every action has moral implications.  Anton Philidor | 09/13/07
We're not talking about banning red pants  John L. Ries | 09/13/07
Jihad!  Yagotta B. Kidding | 09/14/07
Look up /a priori/, John  Yagotta B. Kidding | 09/14/07
That's Stallman how we love him  oliver.widder@... | 09/13/07
Well done! 10.0  John L. Ries | 09/13/07
Very well said!  Jason Etheridge | 09/13/07
Why This Analysis is Wrong  scott1329 | 09/14/07
Misrepresentation all around  Resuna | 09/14/07
Messy variations  Roger Ramjet | 09/14/07
RE: Richard Stallman the creationist  daward@... | 09/14/07
Stallman looks more reasonable  tracy anne | 09/14/07
Why is it...  wmlundine | 09/14/07
RE: Richard Stallman the creationist  rich.geddes | 09/14/07
A better analogy...  reholli@... | 09/14/07
I don't know about you...  bmerc | 09/14/07
RE: Richard Stallman the creationist  Jerry M. Gartner | 09/14/07
RE: Richard Stallman the creationist  shoktai@... | 09/14/07
RE: Richard Stallman the creationist  Jason Etheridge | 09/14/07
Religious analogy correct but wrongly applied  shoktai@... | 09/14/07
And the beat goes on.........  Ole Man | 09/14/07
thanks for bringing in perspective  deaf_e_kate | 09/15/07
You are right!  Ole Man | 09/15/07
The difference is in the details  chromeronin | 09/16/07
Difference between the author and Stallman  geofs2 | 09/17/07
Johny is only repeating  Ole Man | 09/20/07
So says the Linux consultant  John Carroll ZDNet Moderator | 09/27/07
RE: Richard Stallman the creationist  peter_rock | 09/20/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement