The Open Source Debate Traps Hugh

Ah, Open Source vs. Microsoft. The endless debate about tastes great, less filling.

My favorite cartoonist and out of the box thinker, just walked into the trap.

The picture is part of a project Hugh Macleod is working on for Microsoft.  In the post, Hugh makes the comment:

"This cartoon was an attempt by me to sum up the answer to a very simple question: If Open Source software is free, then why bother spending money on Microsoft Partner stuff?"

He tries to answer it with his observation:

"I know very little about software, so my hunch is that the reason Microsoft is able to make money, is simply that running a large business with 2000 people on the payroll requires very different ways of going about it, than just hacking together something in your garage. Open Source may be free [at least at first], but how well does it scale? How well does Open Source currently meet the needs of shareholders and CEOs?"

Approximately one billion Open Source/Anti-Microsoft people are probably burning up keyboard around the globe on this one.

I will focus your attention on the line about shareholders and CEOs. Heck, let's add investors to the pile because all three of us likely have the same answer.  We don't care.  What we collectively care about are solutions to problems that make us money.  That's what you should care about.

For example, last week, I gave a talk with three powerpoint slides full of opportunities with Exchange/Outlook that I believed people would pay to have solved for them.  If a Microsoft Partner fixes or some hacker in the backroom fixes with the free Microsoft compilers, I'm good either way. 

There is a pretty good open source project happening to deal with some schedule/calendaring problems which cover all platforms.  People are going to pay (gladly) for the product that comes out of it.

Shareholders, CEOs, and (for the most part) Investors are generally clueless when it comes to the beginnings of your great idea.  You take the tools (whatever they are), your vision, and your passion into the game.  You create a solution and see if the dogs eat it.  You don't worry about pleasing anyone, just fix the problem.  If it was worth fixing, if the product/service you offer has value/meaning to people, you are there.  Your shareholders and your investors will be happy after your customers are.

And none of us will care about Open Source or Microsoft.

Hope you had Thomas custom fit that flak jacket, Hugh.

Update: Seth Godin has another insight here. Go read it, smarter than me.

Comments

[hugh macleod]

Fair enough, Rick [Tom's in SF at the moment, so no flak jacket for me, sadly]...

This is less of an MS vs Open Source argument for me... I'm more interested in getting my head around how MS makes their money, and why...

And as per my usual schtick, I'm interested in how MS is going to CONTINUE to make money, in this brave new multi-layered world of ours...

Great feedback, though. Thanks for the insights.

[pete]

Hi Rick,

Sorry I missed you when I was at MusicIP.

It just so happens I am starting work on a schedule/calendar project today. What is the open source project you are referring to?
I did a search, but am swamped with php downloads.

cheers

[Norman Young]

Hi, Rick.

I've asked Hugh's question looking at the other side of the same coin: Why do tens of thousands spend millions of hours creating monumental constructions as obscure and as powerful as the GNU optimizing compiler?

After two awe-inspired decades of using the stuff, I finally found the answer, outside of technology, within the human realm. It's simply a form of self expression.

Open source software is a social medium. Instead of text on blogs, or voice in podcasts, open source programmers use code on computers.

Now Public. Red Hat.

Norm.