Mr. Mohan very clearly brought out a point that it is
not possible to promote any product unless the
layman accepts it. The notion that Linux is for
geeks must go in order to promote it. Geeks should
start to talk in plain English.
Are we ready to take it to the masses?
Can we take Linux beyond Web, print, file and
mail server?
Regards
R.Ramaseshan
--- Mohan <mohanakrishnan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
sir,=== message truncated ===
thanx a lot for the long explanation you had
given, the explanation
throws good light on the current market trend, but
to promote free
software-concepts, what are the steps that have been
taken, apart from the
gnu website or mr.stallman's speeches or the lugs
all over the world,
honestly, i wudn't have known about this lug had i
not tripped upon
linux.org, when an organisation wants to promote its
ideas, dont u feel it
should also make its presence felt in the masses,
the more the no. of people
come to know about fsf, the better. but not much is
being done in that
front, although things are happening, and fsf is
gaining popularity, its
real presence can be felt only if the man on the
road can say that a
computer can work without the Microsoft Windows
operating system... and
there are other OS's to do that...
till then, i feel(thats just me) that
however hard we try to
promote, only if we can win the confidence of the
layuser, can we really
convince him that fsf's are on par with the s/ws
that come with so many tags
and strings attached...
mohan>what wud happen if all
mohan> the software available were free and their
source codes open... dont
u think
and sir, by free software, i too meant what
u had said....
thanx again for your patience.. if u can tell me
what is being done to take
linux to the commonman, that wud be great...
hope am not taking u'r time and others,
cheers...
mohan
mohanakrishnan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "P. Sriram" <sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ilugc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Mohanakrishnan
Sridharan"
<mohanakrishnan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: RE: [Ilugc] Business value of
Freesoftware
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Mohanakrishnan Sridharanwrote:
says about freethinking about what the microsoft page
software...
say... what wud happen ifit does seem like he has something valid to
all
source codes open... dont uthe software available were free and their
think
techies... so what sort ofthere wud be a great drop in the demand for
open source codebizness designs wud u incorporate for a free,
software...
http://www.microsoft.com/mind/0599/flux/flux0599.asp
[the microsoft article is here]
untruths. the first
well, actually, the mircrosoft article is full of
thing you will find at www.gnu.org is that freedoes not mean no-cost but
freedom. the basic premise of the entire articleis based on this untruth
(and other such similar untruths). i dont know howmany times stallman has
to say free as in free-dom and not as infree-beer. one of the truths in
the microsoft article is that software isdifferent in that the
development costs are high and production costsare almost negligible
(more on this later). free software (or opensource software) gives a
mechanism by which the end user can actuallyestimate the development
cost. to paraphrase the model "selling freesoftware", developers of free
software are also free to charge whatever themarket will bear. however,
you are constrained to distribute both theoriginal source that you used
and the modifications you did in source form. itwould be fairly easy for
me (the end user) to see that you have spent about2 hours and that gives
me the leverage to offer you only two thousandinstead of two lakhs for
your modified version. if, on the other hand, ican see that extensive
modifications and additions are in place, i willbe willing to pay two
lakhs. once i have paid two lakhs, the questionarises whether you should
charge anyone else also two lakhs; if there are,say, a thousand people
who could use these same modifications, shouldeach of them pay two lakhs?
i have estimated your development cost to be twolakhs, but with that and
negligible productions costs, should each of thesethousand people pay the
full two lakhs development cost? microsoft wouldhave you believe, yes -
and that is how bill gates and microsoft becomeglobal money makers. of
course, this is in the spirit of capitalism, butthe word greed also pokes
up its head. free software has been around fordecades, but as long as the
alternative was the non-free software from ibm ordec or whoever (who did
not become global money makers based on softwarealone), it did not catch
on. i can see a parallel between the growth ofmicrosoft and free
software. i myself believe that present softwareselling models like that
of microsoft are unstable and in a few decades, wewill settle into a
model more like free/open source software. it isnot as if there are other
'goods' that are somewhat similar in nature. takemusic, for example. many
people are willing to pay a thousand rupees to seemichael jackson perform
- well, enough to make michael jackson also aglobal money maker. they
can hear the same music (recorded, and perhaps,clearer) for much less,
they can see someone else perform the same music(almost as good), also
for much less, but it is the whole experience thatpeople are willing to
pay for. and, michael jacksons songs will be seenas such by listeners
listening to other performers with their own coverversions. in a similar
vein, it is possible that the free/open sourcesoftware model can lead to
a situation where software will be sold forsomething closer to
'realistic' costs. this also leads us to whyacademic institutions are
willing to follow the free software model. whenprabhu has a research
problem (visualization of 3-d data), it becomespart of his phd program
and iitm is willing to give him his scholarshipwhile he develops the code
needed to do this. once this code (mayavi) isdone, the research problem
is solved as far as prabhu is concerned and alsoas far as iitm is
concerned. thankfully, neither prabhu nor iitmhave a greedy streak and
so, mayavi becomes 'freely' available. both iitmand prabhu are content
with the name recognition of mayavi -> prabhu ->iitm. sometimes, it takes
more time, resources and effort to churn outsomething and then, some
commercialiazation is done. microsoft would likesoftware people to
believe that free software will rob them of theirlivelihood - and thus
gather force against the free software movement;microsoft does not
necessarily act in the interest of softwarepeople, it acts really only in
the interest of microsoft (in the finestcapitalist tradition). the free
software model does not challenge the livelihoodof software people - it
probably does challenge the livelihood ofmicrosoft.
sriram
