Re: Major interview

[Malonowa <malonowa@wanadoo.fr>]

Ray Olszewski wrote:

> Areas in which Linux needs to improve are:
>
> 1. Development of apps that fill specific educational needs. Use the
> familiar examples from this list to illustrate what can be done, but be
> ready with a bunch of examples of apps that we would like to see available,
> things that would give Linux a real edge over Windows in head-to-head
> comparisons. This is probably the single most important thing you can get

> across in the interview, if you can manage to be sufficiently concrete to
> interest some developers (which may require addressing the question of how a
> developer can make money developing Open Source applications for schools - a
> question I don't know how to answer - I hope you do, or someone on the list
> does).
>

What does "Open Source" mean? "Open Source" software is not "free software". I
think it's very unrealistic to think that any commercial edsoft companies would
embrace the free software model.

Open source - I'm happy to let users have my source code from commercial apps. as
long as they don't distribute it. Free software that I do - then that's free
software and a different ball game altogether.

There's an argument that a company could use a free product to promote its windows
and mac versions in heterogenous environments. The problem here is that should
Linux attain the goal of market saturation then this is no longer viable as a
marketing strategy.

The other issue is selling support and value added services. Most edsoft doesn't
and shouldn't require any of this. Whilst this may be wholly appropriate for
complex applications or operating systems it's not an issue with edsoft.

The question is why should edsoft be "free". Most edsoft isn't all that complicated
to write, it's the graphics, sounds, educational research, licensing of data and
overall design which are important. There's really nothing in most titles that
might imply a stifling of the progression of technology. So how does the "free"
software model apply? An operating system on the other hand is quite different.
Freedom is important there since there's an issue of "controlling" users and new
technology.

As Linux becomes more accepted I think there will be an increase of commercial
apps. in all areas and not all of them will be "free" or "Open source". Perhaps
what we'll see is an increase in fairer pricing and licencing conditions rather
than the "free" model that we've all become used to. It's more likely to assume
that companies not selling "free" software may invest some of their resources in
the community in other ways, be that "freeing" some titles or helping community
projects financially or otherwise.

To summarize:

If we want to attract commercial edsoft developers then I think we need think
sensibly about their needs. "Free software Evangelism" will get nowhere with these
often small companies who have too much to lose by taking such risks. Perhaps, if
people were prepared to pay for software then it's better that the idea of "Fair"
software, pricing and licensing is a more attainable goal.

This is a very important issue which I've discussed with some edsoft companies that
I work with. Whilst I can tell you that there is an optimistically high degree of
enthusiasm here, there is great confusion with regards to market acceptance and the
free software model. If these issues were addressed then perhaps things could move
forward more quickly in this dept. It only takes a few reasonably successful titles
to encourage companies generally to support Linux.

> 4. Inexpensive desktop machines with Linux pre-installed. The leading Linux
> hardware companies, like VA Linux Systems, emphasize high-end workstations,
> servers, and laptops. Linux needs an easy-to-buy $400 pre-configured
> workstation - like an E-Machine. There have been a couple of tries at this,
> but I haven't yet seen a successful one.

http://www.rebel.com/ don't they sell little celeron systems quite cheaply?


Roman.