What will happen if open source wins?

[ITR]

I just read microsofts SEC filing where they stated that open source is a threat to their business model, and it made me think.

If open source wins, will there be no more high paying computer programming jobs? Will CS majors be out of luck unless willing to work for free?

The biggest selling point to free operating systems is the lure of the free applications like office that go along with them. People are going to get use to the idea of free software, and expect not only their music to be free, but now all software as well. Who would use quickbooks when the generic open source quickbooks is just as good?

I think it will happen, and am glad I'm not a computer programmer. What do youall think?




.

 

[strongm]

Yep

 

[Grenage]

It's a bit of a flawed arguement really. Programmers would not be put out of work in an open source environment, and I don't see how people expect free programs (or music - where did that come from?).

Lets assume that within our lifetime open source is suddenly adopted by everyone and microsoft just cash in their chips (won't happen). Open source is just another way of doing things, the programmers are still needed to write the programs, still needed to customise for their customer/client.

As previously stated by Strongm, open source does not mean free.

 

[garwain]

I don't see open source causing us to fear for our jobs. The industry is going to change, but there will still be a need for programmers.

If your company needs an inventory system, sure they can find several open source solutions that cost little if anything to licence, Maybe it will even support your barcode readers, but the database is set up to deal with identification codes up to a max length of 15 characters, and your inventory has codes as long as 25 characters. Do you think the coders will just go and update the program just for you, when no one else has complained about the limitation? With the source code available for a program that does something CLOSE to what a company wants, they will probably be more willing to hire a programmer or 2 to modify these programs to meet their needs.

 

[palbano]

Grenage, do you mean the question does not make sense, because I sure don't understand it.

Microsoft (and many others) have todate and arguably (so don't agrue this point) created very advanced software products even if you have to buy them, and yet still, there is a large demand for software developement. Yet somehow when these very same products are either "open source" or "free" that will reduce the demand for software development?

I just don't follow the point I guess.
-pete

 

[strongm]

It's not your fault; the original question is flawed.

 

[sleipnir214]

Or, more correctly, the questioner's basic assumptions are flawed. Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[palbano]

whew thanks i thought maybe it was time to pack it in! B-)

-pete

 

[c0i0nes]

Open source will not make things any simpler - just more open. Therefore your average accountant will not suddenly be able to understand why his printer doesn't do vertical lines anymore. As he couldn't understand under Windows, when the same thing happened. That's why Computer guys will be around for ever.

 

[mutant]

Check out Gartner's take on SCO and Linux.

http://www4.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=395607&ref=g_forward&call=email

 

[AP81]

I think the future for open source is looking very promising indeed. I just recently set up a Mandrake network for a primary school near me. I couldn't believe it. This is the first time I have run into Linux in a primary school. This is not the first, many places around the world are starting to implement Linux solutions. Why? Licensing issues, high costs, etc...

Linux is increasing in popularity. The statistics that 0.25% of the world uses Linux is completely off the mark. I know ten times as many people who use Linux than I do who use Macs. Furthermore Mac's are said to hold 3% of the market share, so I just wonder how many Linux users there are.

With better technology, easier installations and more packages being available, I think the future is bright. Look at what Mandrake has done, for instance. A very easy transition from windows. I reckon in the next 5 years, there will be versions of Linux running almost identically in similarity to M$.

Hold on to the seems of your pant's Bill 'cause Linux is one day going to bite you on the bum.

 

[jwenting]

IF open source "wins" (as many open source advocates define it, which is the complete abolishment of for-profit software development) software development will come to a screeching halt or at best die a death over about a generation of programmers.

Like it or not, open source development (rather than aftersales support) survives only because programmers are being paid to do other programming work and do some open source work as an aside.
There may indeed be SOME who program open source for a living, but not enough to maintain the large base needed for justifying universities to offer courses (and trainers to give them), publishers to publish books (and authors to write them) and students to even want to consider a study in the field.

The programmer will die out, leaving only a few ever older men (and women) in dusty rooms hacking on code.
Maybe some others will pick it up as a hobby, but they will have tough going to get the skills needed as there will be noone to teach them...

A more realistic approach is the current situation where there is a place for both commercial development and open source side by side.

 

[Grenage]

Not really, as it was stated in another thread:

"Open Source" Does not Mean Free !!!!!!

Programmers would have just as many jobs as they do now.

 

[Tarwn]

Programmers would have just as many jobs as they do now.
More really.

If we were to give up proprietary OS software all together and switch over to purely Open Source OS software, a few things would happen.

There would be a higher demand for programmers - this is based on the fact that despite fluctuations the amount of software and programmers needed to write software has been growing pretty constantly. Open Source will not magically make these needs disappear and will in fact cause them to grow because there is a lot of software that would need to be replaced.

There would be a higher demand for IT people in companies, like it or not small companies and individuals can update their software relatively easily in a Windows envirnoment wihout having to know to much. There is one supplier. IT departmentsd only have to evaluate the effects of patches, upgrades, and new OS versions from a single source, etc. Switching to Open Source means that small companies and individuals would have to hire someone to advise them on who's releases were currently the most stable, the best lace to download releases, etc. IT departments would have to expand in order to handle evaluations on new versions of the OS from many sources, etc.

And what about price. Say non-Open Source goes down the tube, which I find unlikely enough to rate improbable almost to the point of impossibility, will Open Source OS providers (RH, Mandrake, Suse, etc) continue to sell services and addon software cheap? If their expensive competition is removed, so is their reasoning for cheap prices and our measurement that determines they are cheap prices. I would bet successive retail versions of OS's would start to grow in price, especially as the service and support departments had to handle a much larger population.


End Of Those Points, Moving On

Other things to consider:
If Open Source "wins" and closed source OS's like Windows drop to the 3% of Mac, my bet is hackers will stop targeting Windows systems and switch to the new majorities...I would even bet that down the road companies would start charging more in order to be able to create all the patches and everything that would be more evident when Open Source had (if we assume they are currently at about 3%) 30 times the market they do now.


Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, but I don't see the possibility of it taking 90% of the market in the next 15 years, there is to much software that would have to be replaced among other things. Oh and there is the giant corporation called MS with enough money to stick around for quite a while...


-Tarwn

 

[xutopia]

we have to look at the question from an evolutionist view. Though it could mean some instability if Microsoft is forced to throw in the towel for some proprietary software compagnies, it is not a real concern for our jobs.

The IT field is a service industry and so long as we can program in any enviroement we will be able to offer our skills.

Let's face it industry needs IT to stay competitive. Data mining(important to make intelligent business decisions), communication (email, video, digital imaging), cost-saving measures (replacing thousands of invoices and payments with a few online XML transactions). IT enables the economic landscape and we're a part of all of that.

If we look at it seriously Microsoft doesn't have much more to offer than an Office suite and a few different OS which represents 80% of their sales. Because they have a monopoly right now and enforce it with their proprietary formats (NTFS, .XSL, .DOC, .PPS. .MDB, .ASF, etc...) people are starting to wonder if Open Source with it's openness isn't their only solution to remove the shakles of proprietary software and it's costly licensing fees.

I see lots of schools, businesses and whole govemerments installing linux to empower themselves as an answer to the Microsoft threat. The software giant has been locking us in to their products by any means they could for far too long and the world is asking for respite.

In an open source world the best product wins. In a propritary software world the most omnipresent makers can push their software with proprietary formats and schemes. Eventually they amass enough money to make decent products, but they are driven by profit, not necessarily being the best product they can be.

Open source is a more democratic process. If a product sucks it never leaves off the ground and is forgotten. If it is good people stand behind it and it becomes better and better with time.

To me the only thing Open source can change by becoming the predominent software is that choice will be based on quality and features, not forced upon us because it's the only OS sold with that computer vendor or the only software that underestand that encrypted Office file format.

We'll still be asked to partake in projects and will still get contracts making business tools. But we will need to be good programmers.

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
==========================

 

[Tarwn]

I believe .XSL was supposed to be .XLS in the above thread, I spent a few second being confused

I'm not sure the statement "In an open source world the best product wins" is necessarally true. We haven't seen this situation so we don't have data to make a judgement of this nature, only enough to make an opinion.

Yes bad products have a much shorter lifespan in Open Source systems, but you have to take into account the relative knowledge of the average user. I would rate this much higher for Open Source. It is much easier for Open Source to perform as well as it does (comparitavely speaking) when it has a higher percentage of it's user group more technically advanced. If this market were to expand to a larger percentage of the total market, the average computer ability of the group would drop as less technical people start using the system.

Open Source has been lucky to this point because it does not have a huge percentage of the market. That means that they have less ignorant users to worry about instead of hundreds of millions all breaking the system on an hourly basis. I feel if they continue the direction they are going they will stabilize the market shares, but not completely upset the market and become a monopoly. Then again I have never quite agreed that Microoft is a monopoly, if that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion because there wouldn't be alternatives.

Perhaps I'm not as optimistic as some about the future of Open Source operating Systems, or the effect that it would have on them if all of the less technical or no-tech users jumped on board, but it isn't a religion for me so perhaps I see things from a differant angle.

Although just a thought, what would happen if MS went Open Source? Granted it's a long shot, but what if thy decided they had enough of an advantage on the market that they could go open source and still stay ahead of the curve? Would other Open Source alternatives continue to be as popular, or is their popularity too dependant on classifying Windows as a closed source, marketing feat? Closed Source and monopoly have been the two biggest anti-MS arguments of late, if Open Source gains a greater market share and MS decides to jump on that particular bandwagon of being Open Source, will there then come other reasons to classify MS as "evil" as I have seen it said so manty times in other threads? Just a couple thoughts

-Tarwn

 

[Bullschmidt]

Opensource programs (such as PHP instead of ASP on Linux instead of Windows) will still need custom developers to make things "sing."

Best regards,
J. Paul Schmidt - Freelance ASP Web Developer

http://www.Bullschmidt.com

- Creating "dynamic" Web pages that read and write from databases...

 

[Bullschmidt]

<<What will happen if open source wins?>>

We'll be opensource developers but we'll still get paid.

Best regards,
J. Paul Schmidt - Freelance ASP Web Developer

http://www.Bullschmidt.com

- Creating &quot;dynamic&quot; Web pages that read and write from databases...

 

[CubeE101]

What will happen if open source wins?

Better Quality of programs...

-------
Not Getting Paid...

Worth while software...

Due to the fact that eliminating the Dollar Sign will leave only those who actually like to/know how to program...

-------
Getting Paid...

The market will be challenge driven...

Those who have the potintial will have the original code to look at and improve... thus creating a loop with upward results...

Have Fun, Be Young... Code BASIC
-Josh Stribling

http://cubee.topcities.com

 

[jwenting]

&quot;Not really, as it was stated in another thread:

&quot;Open Source&quot; Does not Mean Free !!!!!!
&quot;

The problem is that that is NOT the perception of the end users.
They have gotten used to Open Source = Linux = free that they won't consider paying for it.
They might pay for things like installation support, so people on that end will still have work (like MCSE people do now) but programmers will have to work without payment except a few hired by support companies to create custom tooling for them, and those programmers writing proprietary applications for specific problems of large corporations who can afford to hire and train a dieing breed (like they do with Cobol programmers now).

 

[strongm]

>The problem is that that is NOT the perception of the end users

Which end users? Certainly most companies^* have figured out that Open Source doesn't mean free.

>programmers will have to work without payment

Chortle

^* or, at least, most companies that I have dealings with