Memang, mungkin bisnis model dari Open Source tidak dapat memberikan profit yang maksimal, apalagi jika produk utama developer tsb dibuka ke masal, bisa jadi profit yang didapatkan mungkin lebih sedikit dari pada closed source. Namun bisa saja kita pikirkan dari sisi lain keuntungan open source bisnis model, misalnya tahap testing, bug fix (patch) dan support dapat dibantu oleh komunitas. Kita tidak perlu menyewa tenaga support yang banyak lagi.
Red Hat tidak memberikan omong kosong kepada pelanggannya. Service bukanlah omong kosong, "Software that works" tidak berarti software tersebut bisa dijalankan oleh semua orang tanpa masalah, software tidak ada yang sempurna sekalipun telah melewati banyak proses testing, ingat, proses testing hanya menunjukan adanya bug bukan menunjukan tidak adanya bug. Seperti kata Linus, OSS (Open Source Software) sudah berjalan sendiri sebelum campur tangan pebisnis-pebisnis, dan kalaupun pebisnis meninggalkan OSS, OSS akan tetap hidup. Ketertarikan pebisnis pada komunitas OSS adalah pilihan mereka sendiri, jika bisnis model yang mereka integrasikan ke komunitas OSS kurang sesuai untuk profit, maka mungkin model bisnisnya bisa dipoles agar lebih menguntungkan kedua belah pihak. Salah satu contoh kerja sama mereka adalah Open Source Development Labs (OSDL). Benar sekali tanpa "sugar daddy" maka OSDL tidak akan ada secepat itu, namun Labs ini akan tetap ada hanya saja membutuhkan waktu. Tidak dipungkiri juga "sugar daddy" ini memberikan karbit dalam pertumbuhan linux sehingga pertumbuhannya semakin cepat. Innovative adalah cara berpikir, disini justru komunitas OSS membantu agar manusia lebih berpikir kreatif dan memberikan lebih banyak inovasi. Dengan Closed Source, setiap developer yang berbeda perusahaan akan dipaksa untuk reinventing the wheel (meskipun dengan cara berbeda2). Sedangkan di OSS, mereka dapat meminta ijin untuk mengikut sertakan potongan code dari programmer lain, dan berkonsentrasi untuk menciptakan software yang lebih berinovasi. Just my random thought.. --- In [email protected], Teddy Halim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [image: Forbes.com] > > > Computer Hardware & Software > The Open Source Heretic > Daniel Lyons, 05.26.05, 6:00 AM ET > > Since 1993, *Larry McVoy* has been one of the closest allies to *Linus > Torvalds*, creator of the open source Linux operating system. > > Yet after all these years, McVoy has come to believe that the open source > business model, which is all the rage these days among computer makers like > *Hewlett-Packard* (nyse: > HPQ<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=HPQ>- > news > <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=HPQ> - people > <http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=HPQ>) > and *IBM* (nyse: > IBM<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=IBM>- > news > <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=IBM> - people > <http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=IBM>), > cannot generate enough money to support the development of truly innovative > software programs. > > "Open source as a business model, in isolation, is pretty much > unsustainable," says McVoy, founder and chief executive of *BitMover*, a San > Francisco-based company that makes a software-development tool for Linux > called BitKeeper. > > McVoy understands open source as well as anyone on the planet. Though his > product, BitKeeper, is not an open source program, from 2002 until 2005, > McVoy let open source programmers use it for free. But as of July, McVoy will > stop the give-away<http://www.forbes.com/2005/05/26/hyperlink%20to%20http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/05/25/cz_dl_0525linux.html>, > saying it has been costing him nearly $500,000 per year to support Torvalds > and his programmers. > > Open source advocates have pushed McVoy to "open source" his product--that > is, to publish the program's source code, or basic instructions, and let the > world use it for free. But McVoy says it is simply not possible for an > innovative software company to sustain itself using an open source business > model. > > "We believe if we open sourced our product, we would be out of business in > six months," McVoy says. "The bottom line is you have to build a financially > sound company with a well-trained staff. And those staffers like their > salaries. If everything is free, how can I make enough money to keep > building that product for you and supporting you?" > > The term "open source" refers to software that is distributed with its > source code so that anyone can read or copy that code. Most commercial > programs, like those made by *Microsoft* (nasdaq: > MSFT<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=MSFT>- > news > <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=MSFT> - people > <http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=MSFT>), > keep their source code secret. > > Open source products typically are distributed free, since it's pretty much > impossible to charge money for something that anyone can copy. > > So how do you make money with open source code? Some companies, like *Red > Hat* (nasdaq: RHAT<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=RHAT>- > news > <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=RHAT> - people > <http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=RHAT>), > distribute Linux for free and then make money selling service contracts to > users. > > "One problem with the services model is that it is based on the idea that > you are giving customers crap--because if you give them software that works, > what is the point of service?" McVoy says. "The other problem is that the > services model doesn't generate enough revenue to support the creation of > the next generation of innovative products. Red Hat has been around for a > long time--for a decade now. Yet try to name one significant thing--one > innovative product--that has come out of Red Hat." > > To be sure, a few open source companies are successfully generating revenue > and even (possibly) profits. But none of them generates enough money to do > anything really innovative, says McVoy, 43, an industry veteran who has > developed operating system software at *Sun Microsystems* (nasdaq: > SUNW<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=SUNW>- > news > <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=SUNW> - people > <http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=SUNW>), > *Silicon Graphics* (nyse: > SGI<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=SGI>- > news > <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=SGI> - people > <http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=SGI>) > and *Google* (nasdaq: > GOOG<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=GOOG>- > news > <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=GOOG> - people > <http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=GOOG>). > > > "The open source guys can scrape together enough resources to reverse > engineer stuff. That's easy. It's way cheaper to reverse engineer something > than to create something new. But if the world goes to 100% open source, > innovation goes to zero. The open source guys hate it when I say this, but > it's true." > > Torvalds disagrees with McVoy about the sustainability of open source. > > "Open source actually builds on a base that works even without any > commercial interest [which] is almost always secondary," he says. "The > so-called 'big boys' come along only after the project has proven itself to > be better than what those same big boys tried to do on their own. So don't > fall into the trap of thinking that open source is dependent on the > commercial interests. That's nice gravy, but it is gravy." > > But McVoy says open source advocates fail to recognize that building new > software requires lots of trial and error, which means investing lots of > money. Software companies won't make those investments unless they can earn > a return by selling programs rather than giving them away. > > "It costs a huge amount of money to develop a single innovative software > product. You have to have a business model that will let you recoup those > costs. These arguments are exceedingly unpopular. Everyone wants everything > to be free. They say, 'You're an evil corporate guy, and you don't get it.' > But I'm not evil. I'm well-known in the open source community. But none of > them can show me how to build a software-development house and fund it off > open source revenue. My claim is it can't be done." > > And though open source software may be "free," sometimes you get what you > pay for, McVoy says. "Open source software is like handing you a doctor's > bag and the architectural plans for a hospital and saying, 'Hey dude, if you > have a heart attack, here are all the tools you need--and it's free,'" McVoy > says. "I'd rather pay someone to take care of me." > > McVoy argues that the open source phenomenon may appear to be sustainable > but actually is being propped up by hardware makers who view open source > code as a loss leader--something that will entice customers to buy their > boxes. > > "Nobody wants to admit that most of the money funding open source > development, maybe 80% to 90%, is coming from companies that are not open > source companies themselves. What happens when these sponsors go away and > there is not enough money floating around? Where is innovation going to come > from? Is the government going to fund it? This stuff is expensive." > > Even the popular Linux operating system would suffer if hardware makers > stopped their sugar-daddy support for its development--putting their own > programmers to work on Linux, and sending payments to the Open Source > Development Labs, the non-profit organization that employs Torvalds and some > of his key lieutenants. > > "If hardware companies stopped funding development, I think it would > dramatically damage the pace at which Linux is being developed. It would be > pretty darn close to a nuclear bomb going off," McVoy says. > > McVoy says he believes the software industry will reach some kind of balance > between open source and traditional software companies. Open source > companies will make commodity knockoffs and eke out tiny profits, while > traditional "closed source" companies will develop innovative products and > earn fatter profits. > > Heretical as this may seem, McVoy wants to be on the side that innovates * > and* makes money. > > Want to track news by this author or about this industry? Forbes.com > Attach� makes it easy. Click > here.<http://www.forbes.com/membership/signup.jhtml?comingFrom=fifth&fifthInit=1&pos=attart> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Linux/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
