Re: Making money on open source, if not by selling _support_, then how?

[Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq>]

On 2006-04-18, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> How could there be no day job available for GNU developers?
>> Whatever your answer, it must be purely hypothetical,
>
> Of course, I said "taken to the limit": that is, a world where there
> is only open source software

Such a case is as realistic as the world is hypothetical.

Which isn't to say it not useful to consider the extreme cases, but in
this case it also requires one to neglect the profitability of open
source entirely, and also presumes that day jobs are necessarily in
software development.

> (but is otherwise essentially the same as today - that's an
> assumption, but not much of one - there has been little change in
> the overall economic picture in the last hundred year - industries
> and governments come and go, but the basic drivers have remained the
> same).

The status quo is not even close to 100% open source.  

>> because GNU developers *do* have day jobs.  If they didn't, you'd
>> have to explain how all the GNU developers have been surviving for
>> the past 20+ years.
>
> It's irrelevant, because most software has been developed by non-GNU
> developers in the past. 

The fact that most software has been developed by non-GNU developers
says nothing to the contrary - nor does it support the claim that GNU
developers cannot sustain themselves.

> If there were *only* GNU developers, all of those other "day jobs"
> at non-GNU developers would disappear.

The same fear was expressed by assembly line workers during the
industrialization of the automotive industry.  You might say their
jobs "disappeared", or if you're more progressive you might say their
jobs were "replaced" by another industry.  Either way, you've failed
to show that open source doesn't put software tools in the consumers
hands.  

>> And what prevents such day jobs from being well paying?
>
> Because almost all new jobs created are menial and minimum wage; the
> jobs that require skill and thus are well-paying are
> disappearing. (At least for those with engineering skills. Hardly
> anybody is truly great at more than one thing, and you need to be
> great to make great software.)

This doesn't follow.  Who said the GNU developers day job must be
menial?  You seem to be implying that the only way to be paid well is
to develop closed source software.

> I'm assuming that employment conditions remain similar to thosse of
> today.  In the US, IT people work an average of 48 hours a week. The
> average American takes only 7 days of vacation. Those figures are
> getting worse, not better.

Your assumption is still faulty.  An /average/ American is not well
suited for GNU development.  Someone who is overworked is both
unsuitable for quality work, and further unlikely to voluntarily write
more software in their offtime.  

European developers can be more effective in the open source model
because they aren't pressed to the degree that Americans are.

>> You're assuming these are mentally exhausting day jobs,
>
> All jobs are mentally exhausting; if not for the work, for the
> boredom or the office politics. Especially when you have to do them
> 10 hours a day.

The key here is that you've made an assumption about the length of the
day job.  Someone who burns out doing 10 hour days is unlikely to
volunteer to produce code in their offtime.

> There is only one kind of mental energy, and it's a limited
> resource. I realize that 20-somethings have more of it than
> 40-somethings like me, but there are limits -- I hit them regularly
> when RRS was founded, and I still hit them regularly.

If a developer cannot balance energy expended on their day job and
energy in their offtime, again, unsuitable for GNU software
development.  A precondition for unpaid GNU development is not burning
out on the day job.  Folks who burn themselves out on their day jobs
are unfit for offtime s/w development - which isn't to say they're
excluded from open source participation, it simply means they must do
open source for profit to participate.

> no system is sustainable if it is chewing up and spitting out the
> workers. Quality software (quality anything) is not created with
> slave labor, or people working 22 hour days -- no matter whether
> that is a labor of love or a labor of money.

Exactly.  GNU software is about as far from "slave labor" as feasible,
because it's not only entirely voluntary, but in the absense of
extrinsic motivators it's easy to throttle back or even quit.  The GNU
developer can choose to create their works when they are rested, and
motivated with unused mental energy.  

OTOH, it's the jobs for hire that can demand excessive hours (in an
all or nothing fashion) and ultimately hinder software quality.  The
closed source developer faces this rigid contract, and must perform
even when they're in no condition to.  I believe this is another
contributor to the quality deficiency we see in closed source
products.

-- 
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.