MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-05-02 |
| FROM | Dave Williams
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] [rms@gnu.org: Re: Free Junk - is Apache ready for
|
I just finished an edit. Perhpas it will be useful. Here it is:
-- Where are the Free Software Jobs of Tomorrow? --
A recent local GNU/Linux users group recently ran a thread on the
viability of the Apache in the Enterprise. Initially I thought the
post, though rather poorly written and without a clear context, was
designed to either promote some non-free computer usage or was just an
immature rant made out of youthful ignorance. However the follow-up
messages seemed to better understand the nature of the question. The
message was not about Apache at all. It was about the creeping nervous
insecurity setting in when people started considering their future in
the current information technology economy, and about the ominous signs
on the horizon regarding Free Software's role in future business and job
opportunities.
As originally posed the question was, "Can the Apache Web Server work in
the enterprise environment?" The answer to that question has long been
put to bed. Not only is Apache Application Server technology superior
to any other current solution, but it has also shown itself to be
remarkably flexible for a variety of environments -- from the largest
web-based enterprises to the smallest customized jobs. Apache has been
the poster child for GNU/Linux, and the driving force behind many of
those "under the radar" installations which jump-started the Free
Software craze of the late 1990s. So the question was a little
upsetting. If we rephrase the it to, "Since we know that Apache is a
top-notch web development applications server, and since we know it is
widely deployed, where are all the Free Software jobs which many of us
have made a substantial investment in? Why does it seem that every job
(such as there are in this recession) is asking for WebSphere and Dot
Net experience?"
Now this is a really good question which deserves exploration. For
young people in their late twenties and early thirties their entire
adult life has been one great economic boom, driven largely by
enthusiasm for the dawning digital age and the positive fundamental
economic conditions in the wake of the end of the cold war: Reduced
production costs and global information and commerce. The gains in
modern production techniques were largely possible because of
advancements in computer technology.
It's inevitable under these conditions that the ability to produce
outstrips the ability to consume, and overproduction leads to economic
recession. A healthy economic recession imperfectly shakes out business
models which are inefficient and cannot be sustained. It drives the
customer base to the more successful models which can be sustained, and
whole industries may collapse to be replaced by newer ones in the
following economic expansion. A healthy recession prepares the economy
for its next economic spurt.
The recession, especially for the technology sector, has been anything
but healthy. The problems in the Free Software world reflect the larger
economic conditions. Technology across the board has been devastated,
even for the monopolists. But the economic conditions for Free Software
are especially troubling, and it is partly a situation of our own
making. People who hope to work with free Software in the future, as a
staple of their livelihood and not just as a hobby, need to adapt and
adapt soon.
First, let's look at some impediments to the economic growth of Free
Software in the coming months. Then let's look at the previous
successes and failures of Free Software business, and do an analysis on
how we can improve our chances for the widespread business adoption of
Free Software once the current shakeout is finished.
Larry Augustin, the founder of VA Research/VA Linux/VA Software, has
been famous for saying (and has recently repeated on Don Marti's Linux
Elitist mailing list) that if we have a piece of software and the
software is free but the software is junk, it's just free junk and he
can't go to a CTO in good faith with free junk to advocate its use.
While this sounds like a reasonable position we'll see that this line of
reasoning has several serious flaws. It's not a viable position to take
in a business environment.
It's generally known throughout the technology world that many
proprietary closed systems, produced and deployed by the largest
enterprises in the world, are insecure, buggy, expensive, and
high-maintenance. The quality control of the typical corporate IT
infrastructure fails miserably on multiple levels. As a primary example
of this look at the Microsoft Exchange Server and the Outlook mail
client. Few applications have caused more damage to the corporate
bottom-line than this virus plagued, network destroying junk. And yet
it is probably the most popularly deployed protocol breaking spam-ware
in existence. The great majority of business desktops come preloaded
with the Exchange client, all ready to be plugged into the network to
propagate viruses.
Similarly, in its now historic battle with Netscape this same company
advocated "free as in cost" junk on nearly every Microsoft Windows
desktop in the market. Microsoft had no moral qualms whatsoever about
embedding its Internet Explorer Web Browser technology directly into the
Microsoft Windows Operating System. It took almost two years for
Microsoft's "Free Junk" to become a viable browser, and today people are
so used to it that they look at all other browsers as strange and
non-standard, even (as in the case of Mozilla) when they are measurably
better than the Internet Explorer product.
Microsoft is not alone in advocating junk, free or otherwise.
Quickbooks was also initially junk (and still is, in my opinion). In
fact, it's the kind of junk that breaks basic accounting principles and
misappropriates personal data. Adobe, Apple, Peachtree, Oracle, Sun,
and nearly every other vendor on the market has advocated or still
advocates junk. What makes Larry Augustin think he is so special?
Why stop with Software? Ford Motor Company sold junk which blew up on
contact, Chrysler sold junk which rusted prematurely, Firestone sold
junk which endangered the lives of passengers in SUVs, Tyson's Chicken
sold junk which poisoned people, McDonalds sells junk which makes people
fat, Eli Lilly sold junk which destroyed people's livers, Anheuser-Busch
sells junk as their primary product! The key to all of these companies
is their desire to sell.
Michael Kingsley of Slate Magazine recently reminded me of the
ground-breaking work in economics by John Kenneth Galbraith, in which he
put forth the proposition that the post-industrial revolution economy is
dependent on the ability of producers to satisfy markets of their own
making. Once we got past the basic needs for food, clothing and
shelter, successful businesses fill the market with products to make
teeth brighter, to feel freedom on the highways, or to be the proudest
soccer mom on the playground. Free Software, in some basic regards, has
failed to make its market. Instead we've been content to let others
create markets and then try catching up. Meanwhile we miss the
opportunity to create our own market, based on a new creative concept
which people are going to need.
These patriotic times might be just the moment to focus on the market we
are trying to build. Enterprises will want information services in the
future. Individuals will want information services in the future. And
as sure as Nike sells excitement in a shoe, Free Software needs to sell
freedom in a box. A sales slogan might be, "Freedom -- built into every
box". Free as in Freedom needs to move from an explanation of the GPL
philosophy to a motto which will sell. We need to sell this "Freedom
Junk" and sell it now.
The case for freedom as a sales tool is compelling. Look at how a lack
of freedom is contributing to the economic woes of the nation. Look at
how a lack of freedom has hurt the economy. A causative agent for the
depth of this current recession is the artificial restraint of
innovation and trade in the information distribution segment of the
economy. One of the few growing information technology markets which
showed signs of prospering in the early part of this recession, and
which developed during the boom of the late 1990s, was the music and
entertainment delivery business. Companies like MP3.com, Napster and
others were developing the means for broad, inexpensive delivery of
quality music to clients in a flexible and innovative fashion. These
companies and their expanding workforces were poised to hire the next
generation of information technology professionals. They were snuffed
out in their youth by a vicious and tyrannical consortium of copyright
holders. A few special interest media conglomerates and movie
distribution companies throttled the growing technology economy
overnight. The $60 Billion in estimated damages which the RIAA won
against MP3.com destroyed the company as an independent entity; today
it's owned by Vivendi-Universal. Napster was put out of business by the
RIAA as well. In fact, everyone in the technology business has become
scared to death of doing anything with music. After all, Bertelsman AG
was sued for $17 Billion for settling with Napster and investing in
them. Kaazaa was chased out of the country, Internet Radio has been
regulated out of existence, and so on. These actions have produced
serious depressive effects on information technology business.
The direct result of this litigation is that software innovation has
been sidelined nationwide. Just combining the words "computer" and
"music" sends a shiver down the spine of business planners. Instead of
an economy which leverages growing technological innovation with over
100 years of recording history toward economic expansion, we've allowed
petty bickering between autocratic recording industry executives and
telecom business leaders to drive the independent Internet Service
Providers out of business.
The most grievous abuse of this bickering could be seen in the stock
prices of AOL-TimeWarner. Here we had a match made in heaven. The
combination of AOL with TimeWarner had the potential to be so successful
that it sent a chill through the entire Internet Provider industry
because of the obvious monopolistic position the new company would have,
on both content and access. Here we had the nation's largest
subscription Internet and Digital Services Provider gaining access to
one of the largest monopolistic reservoirs of content in the world.
Additionally, TimeWarner had the obvious advantage of gaining access to
one of the largest cable networks in the world, permitting AOL to
sidestep one of the largest pitfalls to universal broadband access:
TELCO foot dragging by the Baby Bells. AOL gained content and the "last
mile" of network connectivity in one swoop. So what went wrong?
The corporate culture of TimeWarner entrenched itself and fought AOL all
the way. TimeWarner refused to provide real content to AOL and refused
to make the cable network available for AOL, forcing their Virginia
division to reinvent the wheel, and TimeWarner even played with the idea
of decoupling the two companies after they drove AOL's innovative chief
executive Steve Chase out of the company. The executives of TimeWarner
preferred to lose two-thirds of their equity value rather than freeing
up their content for mass distribution.
Clearly Free Software can develop a new market, a "Freedom" market, and
succeed as others have failed. But it also has to overcome the huge
political disadvantage that it currently suffers from. Politics and
business are integrated. Business and free enterprise have been the
moving force for global democratization since the dawn of civilization.
As the banking and mercantile classes accumulated increasing wealth in
the 15th and 16th centuries, political favoritism, standardized
commercial laws and individual rights became increasingly demanded from
governments. Governments which heeded this call, like Great Britain and
the Netherlands, grew into world dominating powers. Governments which
failed to heed the needs of business, like France and Italy, drove
themselves toward brutal revolutions and a weakened world position.
If you are interested in business but not interested in politics, get
comfortable with politics now or get comfortable with predestined
financial failure. For Free Software to survive in business it
absolutely needs a constructive engagement in the political process.
The only question should be, "What does free software need from
government?"
First, Free Software businesses need free access to all digital
information and hardware, unencumbered by artificial barriers. It needs
to pro-actively fight the various Digital Rights Management schemes now
being bantered about by the content industry and consumer electronics
manufacturers. Free Software needs freedom, and it needs to promote
freedom.
Second, Free Software needs a fair playing field in a competitive market
place. It needs inexpensive broadband access. It needs access to
domestic and foreign markets. It needs a fair and just application of
anti-trust regulations and sane contract law. If you want Free Software
to have a chance at succeeding in the market you're going to have to
fight for a place at the table. Keep your local congressman's phone
number handy. Don't become confused by rhetoric which is against your
self-interests. Your interest is marketing Freedom. Don't let any
minute details confuse the overall requirements of your livelihood.
Finally, it's important to keep your marketing strategy in front of
you. If you evaluate the immediate job potential of different
technologies you can ask if Apache is a viable application server but
you shouldn't stop there. Visual Basic is also likely in your future,
as is advanced skill with Excel spreadsheets. There is no need to just
limit yourself the Internet specific application services. In the next
six months VBA and Microsoft Access are as likely to land you work as
anything else. The entire technology field is currently in a severe
economic recession. Much of the reason for this has to do with a lack
of access to markets. It could well be that the type of technology
career you envisioned for yourself three years ago may never
materialize. It could be that we are facing a future in which only a
very few of the brightest engineers will make money in the information
technology market. And those individuals will be working for only a few
of the largest monopolies that still exist. The current trend is to put
easily exploitable programming tools into the hands of non-programmers
in order to fill the needs of various industries. It doesn't take a
genius to write business logic programs, and a great number of
accountants, human resources people, and administrative assistants are
capable of doing it. As closed systems become simpler and easier to
program and adjust, putting these programming tasks directly into the
hands of the business user who understands his needs makes increasing
sense. What kind of job does that leave you with on a locked down
Microsoft C# desktop? Even Oracle has simple GUI tools to develop a
great deal of the software which people use today.
The fact that some people are wondering about the future of Apache in
the enterprise should make you think twice about your future in the
computing field. Obviously something about Free Software appeals to
you, because otherwise the question doesn't cross your mind. What is it
that you consider so important for your future? It's the freedom Free
Software gives you which is its appeal. And you need this freedom to
market yourself to others. If the question arises about how to market
yourself in the current economy, you're going to have to market freedom
if you want to work with Free Systems.
Look at what IBM has done. IBM has invested heavily in GNU/Linux.
They've put Linux in the minds of the public. And for that the Free
Software community should be grateful. But IBM is not selling Freedom
and an open market. IBM is selling WebSphere, DB2, Java, and hardware.
The last time I looked their products weren't free. They've
successfully exploited a Free Software platform, but that's only
marginally beneficial to the community.
If every Apache Application Server running on Free Software is
eventually replaced by IBM's WebSphere your market for work has receded,
and Free Software is no better off than it was before GNU/Linux was even
on IBM's radar. In fact, things will be significantly worse because all
of the applications will be running on a proprietary server and a closed
Microsoft desktop. The innovations of Free Software application
development will have come to a dead stop.
Who knows what IBM will do in the future. They can decide to take their
ball (WebSphere) and go home. As a result of IBM's work and the
efforts of Microsoft you are asking today, "Is Apache ready for the
enterprise?", even in the face a proven track record of successful and
profitable deployment. And yet it appears that Apache is being
outflanked by the bungled marketing strategies of far too many groups.
The Larry Augustin's of the world have put us all behind the eight ball.
The one thing that WebSphere and C# cannot compete on is Freedom, and
Freedom is the market which we must develop. In the long run Freedom is
the most cost-effective choice for businesses and individuals. It is
far more cost-effective than enslavement-ware. Instead of compromising
with every vendor of enslavement-ware, attention needs to be focused on
the freedom-ware we sell.
Lots of money and effort have been funneled into Free Software, but like
the broadband debacle we are hung up on the last mile. We not only need
to focus on that mile, that piece of software which exists between the
users and the information they need, but we need to work hard on
building demand for our product.
The time is long overdue for us to stop chasing enslavement-ware
marketing plans and create our own freedom-ware products and services.
We need to market these products up and down the entire technology
tree. We not only need good desktop systems but unique features that
enhance those freedoms people can't live without. We need databases and
spreadsheets and word processors. But at some point we need to break
with the current offerings and make them unique, expanding our freedom.
And if our software is sometimes, as Larry puts it, "Free Junk", at
least it is our free junk and not theirs. We have the capacity to
improve our junk better than the competition can improve theirs, and we
can do it at a lower cost. So when our Free Junk doesn't work all is
not hopeless. The challenge for those dedicated to getting Free
Software into the enterprise is to build our market, the market of
Freedom, and to sell as much "Free Junk" as is humanly possible.
- Ruben Safir
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 19:46, Ruben Safir wrote:
> From: Richard Stallman
> To: Ruben Safir
> In-reply-to: <20030501193709.GA15220-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com> (message from Ruben
> Safir on Thu, 1 May 2003 15:37:09 -0400)
> Subject: Re: Free Junk - is Apache ready for the enterprise
> Reply-to: rms-at-gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 03:06:44 -0400
>
> executives of Time Warner preferred to loose 2/3rd of its equity value
> rather than freeing up its content for mass distribution.
>
> I think you mean "lose", not "loose".
>
> and a market. IBM is selling Websphere, DB2, Java, and mainframes. And
> the last I looked, there products are no free. They've successfully
>
> I think you mean "not free".
>
> And who knows what IBM will do i the future.
>
> i => in?
>
> As a result of IBM's efforts, and
> the efforts of Microsoft, your asking today, "Is Apache ready of real
> enterprise" in the face a huge proven track record of of successful and
> profitable deployment.
>
> I think you mean "you're asking" but I am not sure.
>
> Aside from that detail, it is a good article.
> If you tell me a precise URL for it, I will get a link made
> on www.gnu.org.
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
