This is complete and utter nonsense. Windriver, Monta Vista, and QNX are still selling proprietary OSs and doing quite well. Apple is not an “OS vendor”, they’re a gadget and services vendor who has found it worthwhile to layer user code over FreeBSD so they can concentrate on their strengths, there’s nothing in their organization that would differ if they were to replace FreeBSD with Monta Vista Linux.

And let’s not forget that 95% of the laptop and desktop computers in the world run Windows, which is hardly an indictment of the alleged inefficiency of the proprietary software model.

FOSS freaks typically take credit for things they’re not entitled to claim, and this argument that FOSS is radically different way to organize software projects is just the latest example. FOSS is different way of paying for software, not of producing it. In essence, FOSS is simply an advertising-supported product, nothing more or less. Software contractors contribute to Linux to get their name in the code, and hardware vendors contribute staff to have an alternative to Microsoft for servers. And Redhat contributes in order to sell services. So it’s not free so much as it’s subsidized.

Obviously, some open source projects are more centralized than some proprietary projects, just as some women are taller than some men. But on the margin, adopting open source development models will make your project more decentralized. Likewise, it’s possible to run an open source project inefficiently, and there may be certain categories of software that aren’t amenable to the open source model. But if you do have the critical mass to run a project on an open source model, the development process is likely to be more efficient than a competing closed-source project. There’s a reason that every operating system vendor in the world other than Microsoft (i.e. Apple, Sun, Novell) has shifted toward more open-source-centric development models for the core of their OSes. Microsoft has the luxury of blowing enormous piles of money developing Windows the old-fashioned ways. Its competitors don’t have those kinds of resources, so they’re going the more efficient route of seeking community help with their development process.

While i certainly understand where you are coming from, I’m not completely bought on the idea that,

a) a FOSS project means its necessarily decentralized. b) decentralization necessarily means the software is more efficient.

To the affect of a)

I have personally had experiences with FOSS projects that has a very centralized in their development approach. Their project is not popular enough to attract the thousands of contributors like Linux or Firefox, so they rely on good-old hired software developers to get the work done.

I am willing to bet there are good many closed-source applications which have a very decentralized approach to developing perhaps within those organizations, partners and so on. (doesn’t Microsoft have an arrangement which shares their code with developers, researchers, etc.?)

To the affect of b)

I think Richard is right to the extent that “more eficient” claim is best supported by evidence and what you mean by “efficiency”.

If its in terms of “better software” for consumers, I can think of a number of instances (such as Media players for example) that open source products can come even close to being first choices for applications. i doubt in the media player market for example, that DMCA is at fault, although i confess i dont have a thorough understanding of it (your cato study is in my to-read list)

Again i think it comes down to which particular software product you are talking about, and the best approach to develop and distribute it, and i maintain it’s just a management decision. So I’d be reluctant to approach it in a more philosophical way.

Some great insight from the nameless person on jan 10 4.26 am.

cheers. Deabe

Windows source code is available to many customers, but that doesn’t make it a free product. So my point is that the operative term in FOSS isn’t “open”, it’s “free,” as that’s the only difference.

Both FOSS and proprietary software projects build on code written by others. The Adobe guys count on somebody else to write the OS, the GUI, and the Window manager, they don’t so it all themselves, so FOSS and proprietary software projects don’t differ in the cast of characters.

This crazy notion that FOSS is bottoms-up and democratic while commercial software is top-down and fascist is simply that.

RE Hayek: I probably spend an hour and a half a day just thinking about various costs related to my work; when I accept or reject prices I am taking part in a collective process that evaluates millions of advertised or tendered offers and then only accepts the upper bound (in dollar value terms) in an evolutionary process. There was a time when it was believed that for every little businessperson to spend so much time on that kind of nonsense was hugely inefficient and it would be better to handle that sort of thing at national or international price-setting bureaux staffed by people who really knew what they were doing. Hayek basically said, no, its better if Timon’s company and everybody else’s pays them to work 1.5 hours a day to contribute to an open source project called the price system. (There are no proprietary information rights in prices, despite the best efforts of the usual suspects.)

Having many thousands of people with imperfect information collaborate on actual FOS projects is really just a microcosm of the basic Hayekian insight. If you have many projects start, many patches offered, and only the upper bound in terms of usefulness continue to develop, you will be more efficient than if there are only a few, and certainly than if there is only one. Proprietary software is more or less exactly the same as FOS in that sense, except that it depends on government intervention in the form of patents and copyright to introduce a static inefficiency where the price of the work product would otherwise be $0. (Actually, in China, Windows is often cheaper than Linux, because the latter requires more CDs for the installation media.) In the specific context of technology there appear to be some network effects that do winnow the numbers in many sectors down to un-Hayekian levels, and when government monopolies are added to that dynamic there can be really noxious outcomes.

However useful you find the two approaches it is a pity that otherwise libertarian thinkers are so often dismissive of their own models when they reach disruptive base cases.

FOS simply drives costs downstream by skimping on testing

Who’s assuming facts not in evidence? Especially when writing software for themselves (libraries, OS’s, editors, programming languages) my experience is that FOSS has more testing, both automated and user based. Your quote seems to indicate a faith that somehow because money isn’t changing hands value, even better value, can’t possibly be created by FOSS processes. This despite large quantities of market choices (eg the LAMP stack) that demonstrate otherwise. It is precisely at this point (rescuing FOSS from the communists, convincing libertarians that non-economic arrangements may be beneficial and liberty enhancing) that I appreciate Tim’s contributions.

because there are lots of proprietary open source projects in the world, e.g. Windows

What? In what universe is Windows “open source”? I am aware of their “Shared Source” initiative in which certain partners (OEM’s, Govt agencies, etc) may sign NDA’s and view the windows source as an aid to interoperability, etc. This is a huge distance from any meaningful sense of “open source”.

You go on to say

This is a fallacy, as capitalistic s/w projects often use contractors, third party code, and joint development. The range of opportunities is actually broader in non-FOS projects, therefore.

Please. Yes proprietary projects use contractors, third parties, etc. Of course my experience in software dev strongly suggests that the less core you are to the company, the less core your dev work is going to be. The Indian outsourcing firm is probably testing, the remote contractors are writing isolated bits and pieces like plugins and drivers while the core product is internal to the company. Even ignoring that generalisation, however, how in the world can you say that “company X may be in a relationship with a few people not formally employed by them” means greater opportunities for participation than FOSS (anybody anywhere with skills and inclination may participate).

FOS simply drives costs downstream by skimping on testing

Who’s assuming facts not in evidence? Especially when writing software for themselves (libraries, OS’s, editors, programming languages) my experience is that FOSS has more testing, both automated and user based. Your quote seems to indicate a faith that somehow because money isn’t changing hands value, even better value, can’t possibly be created by FOSS processes. This despite large quantities of market choices (eg the LAMP stack) that demonstrate otherwise. It is precisely at this point (rescuing FOSS from the communists, convincing libertarians that non-economic arrangements may be beneficial and liberty enhancing) that I appreciate Tim’s contributions.

because there are lots of proprietary open source projects in the world, e.g. Windows

What? In what universe is Windows “open source”? I am aware of their “Shared Source” initiative in which certain partners (OEM’s, Govt agencies, etc) may sign NDA’s and view the windows source as an aid to interoperability, etc. This is a huge distance from any meaningful sense of “open source”.

You go on to say

This is a fallacy, as capitalistic s/w projects often use contractors, third party code, and joint development. The range of opportunities is actually broader in non-FOS projects, therefore.

Please. Yes proprietary projects use contractors, third parties, etc. Of course my experience in software dev strongly suggests that the less core you are to the company, the less core your dev work is going to be. The Indian outsourcing firm is probably testing, the remote contractors are writing isolated bits and pieces like plugins and drivers while the core product is internal to the company. Even ignoring that generalisation, however, how in the world can you say that “company X may be in a relationship with a few people not formally employed by them” means greater opportunities for participation than FOSS (anybody anywhere with skills and inclination may participate).

I agree entirely, as Tim is actually concerned about freedom whereas the IPCentral gang are just corporate power apologists, who don’t really care about freedom, or human rights for that matter either.

What Tim doesn’t get though is that a substantial part of the ‘left’ REALLY gets markets, and that’s why many ecologists embrace authentic market forces.

See Amory Lovins at naturalcapitalism.org, for example.

http://www.natcap.org/

Caught you again, claiming that von Hayek was a Libertarian!

Not true! See his essay “Why I am not a Conservative”

Can you cite even one example when von Hayek indicated he was a Libertarian?

EF

Assumes facts not in evidence. Are “open source” projects (I assume you mean “free open source” because there are lots of proprietary open source projects in the world, e.g. Windows) more efficient, or simply cheaper? It seems to me you’re advocating for an “infinite number of monkeys” approach to s/w dev, which may be cheap but isn’t efficient; FOS simply drives costs downstream by skimping on testing.

Open source software is inherently more decentralized than closed-source software because open source software projects can solicit contributions from those outside of the firm, whereas proprietary software firms can only get contributions from within the firm.

This is a fallacy, as capitalistic s/w projects often use contractors, third party code, and joint development. The range of opportunities is actually broader in non-FOS projects, therefore.

The result is that closed-source software projects tend to be much more top-down in their organization than open-source projects.

Again, facts not in evidence. All s/w projects are managed top-down from the standpoint of who does what part of the overall design. That’s just the way large engineering projects tend to be, and there’s nothing magic about the intent to give the product away for free other than skimping on quality. Want to ride in Space Shuttle produced by an FOS team? Ha.

They do a great job of explaining how and why peer production works, and I think it’s a shame we libertarians didn’t get there first.

Do they explain how it works, or simply how they think it works? I maintain they’re romanticizing, and there’s no shame in not doing that.

One of the reasons I like TLF is that you’re not one of those libertarians who seem to focuses solely on the economic side of libertarian thought, and that you can see elements of your beliefs in sections of society, even when that takes you closer to the ‘lefties’. But I think you’re quite lonely in that place.

my 2c.