Gibson Guitar Pack @ Best Buy $99.99Open source leech rails against open source companies
I'm sure these geniuses at PacketTrap posted this manifesto about why commercial open source is no good as part a misguided marketing attempt, but I feel it necessary to comment on just how stupid this is and why this kind of thing leads to a company's failure.
The CEO's argument essentially says commercial open source isn't fair because he can't take all the code (he highlights GPL products) and recast it as his own.
PacketTrap believes that the commercialization of open source by the POSS vendors such as Hyperic and GroundWork Open, however, skillfully undermines the original goal of open source projects to develop strong software solutions without the negative effects of commercial vendor profit motive.
It's interesting that he thinks that these companies are undermining the spirit of OSS when his company takes a bunch of OSS components, aggregates them and pretends like they did something new and exciting.
He also notes how his company is part of the community, yet doesn't state what projects the staff contributes to, nor could I find anything that they had open-sourced themselves.
After looking at the blog's header image of a guy with a plunger, an anonymous friend noted:
"If Hyperic is the cash register of open source, I guess that makes these guys the toilet."
The PDF "Integrating Open Source in Commercial Solutions: Does PacketTrap Have the Right Model?" is a great example of why you need PR help when you are a young company. Most people aren't smart enough to edit their own stupidity.
Dave Rosenberg dishes up "Software, Interrupted" with nearly 15 years of technology and marketing experience that spans from Bell Labs to multiple start-up IPOs to open-source enterprise software companies. He is co-founder of MuleSource and currently serves as the general manager of Hardy Way. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can contact Dave via e-mail at softwareinterrupted@gmail.com or follow him on Twitter @daveofdoom.
Couple of things:
- Writing a 12 page whitepaper (+ press release) on disparaging your open source competitors says a lot about the priorities of a young company. How about you write a white paper telling me why your product is better? That's a much more interesting conversation.
- Lacking the dilligence to learn that Hyperic developed all its own technology which it then open sourced to the benefit of multiple thousands of happy, community members is ironic from a company who likes to take stuff for free but not give any back. The author wasnt smart enough to do his homework and realize that Mule, Hyperic, Zenoss, Alfresco, Zimbra, (and the 20 other companies he names) all developed their own stuff.
- The whitepaper in its essence: Our proprietary model is better because we're purely guided by profit and can leverage free stuff we can rip off of other people. Their model sucks because they let tons of people use their stuff for free, participate in a community by giving back code and feedback, but also make money which just confuses everything.
- Another gem: "The interest of a commercial vendor is opposite to that of an open source project, commercial vendors answer to road maps, salespeople, and shareholders." In other words, its impossible for a software vendor to be both listening to its users and selling value to their customers. Of course, their 'freemium' model is better, right? No code, no participation, just demoware and a price tag.
Please, my eyes are hurting from reading this.
I was going to avoid the whole thing and not give them press but sometimes you need the community to see the who is benefiting from their work. And in this case it's a leech company that is looking for a marketing angle.
Also, I would suggest that before you go off next time, you should (a) try to write a piece that actually makes a point rather than just hurls insults, and (b) actually attempt to make a decent counter-argument that provides some kind of support for your position. It's pretty easy to sit atop the Internet Pulpit and tell everyone what's wrong with the world. It's far more interesting to write an opinion and try to support it.
I applaud Mr Goodman for calling '********' on the commercialization of Open Source. Nowhere does he pronounce that Open Source is bad. Let's not kid ourselves... We are all adults (or getting there). There are plenty of large commercial companies that use Open Source as a marketing flag that they waive in front of unsuspecting eyes. I can open source 2,000 lines of code and then write 2,000,000 lines of code that I call 'enhancements' and still market my company as 'supporting open source' or 'sponsoring' some open source project. Given that probably 98% of people who use open source products do so because they are free and not because they ever modify a single line of code it wouldn't be too hard to bait-and-switch those people into trying a 'free' product that they have to pay for if they want support and enterprise-quality features. It's the classic sales model: give them a free taste then make 'em pay when they want more.
Mr. Goodman should stand up for himself instead of having his PR shills come out against open source.
In the end it doesn't matter as companies like PacketTrap are doomed to fail.
"Sell, offer to sell... exploit" seems to sum it right up. Hyperic is trying to make some money and will profit (if they can) by incorporating code written by others without providing royalties or any kind of renumeration. You argue that Steve missed the point that Hyperic wrote the code that it opened up. You don't explicitly state the reason you did that. Was it for the better good of all mankind? Perhaps it was a gesture that you could leverage from a marketing perspective? Perhaps your agenda was to get others to build agents for your technology? You have an Open Source version of your product and an Enterprise version of your product. Do you really expect people to believe that you give away the Open Source version of your product (without support) out of the goodness of your heart? It seems pretty clear to me: you give away and open source a basic product with the hopes that people who try out your product will one day step up and purchase the 'real' product. You jumped on the open source bandwagon in hopes of riding on the coattails of a movement that has had popular support in the media. You did it for the benefit of your company and so you can earn a few dollars in the end.
If 'commercial open source' wasn't just a bait-and-switch you would provide financial renumeration to ALL of your contributors. If someone wrote a killer new plug-in or contributed a bug fix that made your product easier to sell, you should give them a piece of the pie. I think Apple has done the smart thing with the API for the iPhone. The provide a public specification for developers. Allow these developers to submit their code and binaries for review and consideration. If these applications meet Apple's standards, they allow those developers to sell their applications and provide a revenue sharing model that everyone benefits from. This leads to very high quality code (buggy code doesn't generally get much commercial success) and provides equity for those who actually contribute to the success of the iPhone as a platform. Perhaps open source vendors should consider the Apple model and actually start paying contributors for the code they write...
Its fine for Goodman to call BS on whatever he wants. What you seem to ignore is that the company TAKES but doesn't GIVE BACK. If you are going to cast stones at open source you should at a minimum take part in the process.
Otherwise, Goodman (and you) should shut the hell up.
As a side note, CNet doesn't approve of foul language so your comment is going to get removed.
I guess you think that people can't be passionate about something unless they have a financial stake in the subject (hmmm... don't you work for MuleSource a 'commercial open source company'). I actually just like to root for underdogs (go Giants ;-) and I hate flawed logic. You still haven't actually made a point other than to hurl insults... Please define 'GIVE BACK'. Does it mean: Do things that look altruistic on the surface but are really intended to help your company market itself? Companies like Microsoft and Google are considered 'evil' even though they contribute billions to charity and research. It would be naive to think that companies like Microsoft and Google contribute to open source projects for any reason other than to use it for good PR and to help support defenses against anti-trust lawsuits. All I am saying that this is all a game at this point. You've got some companies on the religious right (yours included) arguing that their way is the holy and right way to 'do business' and slinging accusations that anyone who doesn't support their way is 'stupid'. You also have companies and individuals (like me) that are more practical and can see through all of this hype. I prefer companies that clearly state how they operate than those which hide behind a thin veil of misdirection and expect educated consumers to not see through their BS.
I hope that CNET edits my first post rather than removes it. I didn't read the terms of use close enough to abbreviate my comment to 'BS' (and this darn commercial product Jive doesn't allow you to edit your own comments -- those self serving profiteers at Jive are just out to get me). Speaking of the Terms of Use, couldn't your original post be considered a violation since it defames poor Mr. Goodman by calling him stupid?
I didn't say that the company was stupid, just the premise of the argument--open source doesn't mean free, free software means free--regardless the company is taking advantage of others work for financial gain. I fail to see how that is inaccurate.
re: CNet.--I take responsibility for my statements. I didn't call Goodman stupid just the premise. If you are such a bigshot how about I interview you so you can elaborate on why you are such a genius and the rest of us who actually do things are morons. Instead you hide behind an alias that doesn't seem to exist on any other site. Odd how that happens.
Oh, and yes, Jive is out to get you. I have asked them specifically to make it difficult for you.
-
by gtewallace
February 16, 2008 10:44 AM PST
- I wrote what I think was a damned good article in LinuxWorld Magazine in 2006 that explains why open source is a better way to deliver enterprise software. It includes on page 2 a case study that looks at SugarCRM for which I interivewed John Roberts.
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)Here's the link: http://linux.sys-con.com/read/173425_1.htm