People's Views of Free Software like Linux

We couldn't ignore the fact that world economy is slowing as indicated by stocks going down led by the U.S. and other countries just early this year. There is even fear that there would be a recession in the U.S. and should admit that it can affect the world. Because of this, companies are shedding I.T. staff instead of shedding expensive software to run their businesses.

Linux comes on a day that software is already expensive to buy, and computers or I.T. knowledge is essential in having a career anywhere. Here in our country, where 80% is poor, cannot have the money to buy computers and even software for that matter. That is why 70% are using pirated copies of softwares like Windows sold in “mobile” flea markets and in respectable malls. To be honest, I can't blame them; they need to earn money even with the most shameful jobs around.

I am doing this not for myself but to give a look at a new perspective; a new way of thinking that 'free' is not synonymous to less. Also, it tells the readers that there is money in 'free' Linux and that independent developers who can't get into large corporations, can have a way to have work and a decent pay. As a developer myself, I came from a rich family, but having my own projects independently. This 'views' will also give the readers a look on other people's opinions on making money from open source like Linux.

[fct says:]

“Consider that with free software you can sell support without being the developer of the application. For example, you can get paid for Linux+Apache+MySQL server installations without getting a certificate or paying licenses. Even do formation for employees in your client company.

Also, you can use the tools without paying licenses for your programming needs. And modify those tools to your needs without being restricted to asking the developers (and most times paying the price for those external modifications).

If you decide to work on proprietary application development, you'll have a hard time programming an application from scratch that can outsell the competition.

Most closed-source developers I know work on a dedicated, on-demand basis. They go for niche markets and ask tons of money per license. But whenever a big enterprise steps into their market, they lose most clients since they are able to program better software with their huge amount of programmers employed.

Now, if you develop free software, there are lots of doors that can be open. For example, companies like Redhat, Sun, Novell or IBM are employing free software developers to work full time on their favorite projects that said companies need (the linux kernel, gnome desktop system, etc.). Also, you can get help from the community of developers that use your app and submit patches to the source code to improve it. Not to forget that self-employment is seriously affected by the amount of money you can spend at the beginning (some friends I know started a web design company and spent half the money in software licenses - they were in red numbers for more than a year).

Also, many people like the ideology behind it:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html”

[az says:]

“The point of GNU is that software is not property. A company like microsoft only sees software as property. That is the difference.

A developer who works for microsoft works on code all day long and when she goes home, that code does not belong to her. The same developer working for an open source company can say that she owns the code she wrote. It belongs to everybody. She gets to keep her paycheck too!

Most professional software developers work on projects that they do not end up selling in stores. Usually, they work on in-house projects or utilities that are not of value to the mass market. There is an advantage in Free-libre open source software that the tools for developing such software is easier to use and holds no overhead. You do not have to pay to make the programs you need to run your business.”

[cactus says:]

“-Support (installation/administration/etc)
-For hire customization (company A needs feature X, but cannot code it themselves. So..the pay the main development team to add it.)
-Hosting of services (Some people don't have the resources to run certain open source packages. think clustering, websites, etc)
-Advertising (some projects are sponsored by a corp, in order to garner good will/reputation in industry, or to show their customer base they know what they are doing)
-R&D (some projects are corp sponsored, as research and development projects)

that is what I came up with in... 30 seconds.”

[David Marrs says:]

“Remember that you can still sell the software you develop. It's the source code you have to make easily available free of charge. It really depends who you're marketing this stuff to how successfully you'll sell it to them. If they're the kind of people who are happy finding cracks for software then you'll have difficulty selling it whether the source is open or closed. If they want a product that just works then they may be willing to pay for the convenience of having a self-installing binary.

But I think most developers get their pay working for companies that sell solutions to other companies. Their clients typically want a product with a guarantee and they're willing to pay thousands for that product, regardless of whether the source is closed or not. The advantage of open source is that if Vendor X goes out of business, Vendor Y can still provide upgrades because they have access to the source code. So there's a guarantee of longevity there that doesn't exist with closed source (unless you're buying from a giant like Microsoft).

Both open and closed models have their relative strengths and weaknesses. Which ever model you use, the important thing is to take advantage of its strengths and try to avoid its weaknesses.”

[skirkpatrick says:]

“Well, I don't mind paying for some software. I pay for games (even Linux ones) and I paid for the financial program (Moneydance) that I use. I do think that everyone should have at least an OS and a few programs that they need everyday (browser, email, word processor, etc) that they can get for free. What I do object to is being forced to pay for an upgrade every year or two because that's the only way I'll get bug fixes or the ability to access files created by users of the new version, especially when there are no new features that I want. In all honesty, what features has Office added since '97 that 98% of the users actually use or need?

There's another software model that's starting to take off that makes sense and in my opinion, something MS should have used for Word and Excel. You give away a version that has most of the functionality that people want and then charge for advanced features and plug-ins.”

[Joeb says:]

“The real answer to the question is simply by providing a service that people are willing to pay for.

If I develop proprietary software, I may make some money from the initial sale, but it is in providing maintenance services where the real money is at (look at the price of Microsoft SQL Server vs the annual maintenance fees).

Likewise, with FOSS software, I can sell my software, but whoever buys my software may turn around and give it away. So the answer again is in the service revenue of supporting the software, whether a linux distribution or just one application.

Unlike proprietary software where you are locked into the support from the "owner" or one of their associate companies, FOSS allows the user to go to the best service provider, so it keeps me, the original developer on my toes if I want to maintain that revenue stream.

If I offer the best support, then I will have the revenue. IBM is an example of this model. They don't produce their own Linux distribution, but they do support a number of them. Why? Well, large companies, particularly those already used to doing business with IBM, like support from other large companies.

That said, I know a lot of independent service providers for both Microsoft (proprietary) and/or open source software. They stay in business and grow, by providing what the customer wants -- solutions to their business problems. In other words, by providing a service that people want.

So, in answer to the original question of "How do people make money with free software?" They don't. They make money by providing a service that people want.”

Source: Ubuntu Forums (http://ubuntuforums.org)