Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
General Apps
Office, email and business apps
Microsoft Office 2024 Preview - Part of M365 and non-subscription options
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bazang" data-source="post: 1103122" data-attributes="member: 114717"><p>Making money from supporting FOSS is not the same as FOSS being economically viable in and of itself. FOSS companies survive by charging absurdly high prices - mostly to government agencies and government contractors. Governments pay those absurd prices because it is collected tax money and they can pay prices that are 10X the current market rate. They are not accountable to the taxpayers. Without that kind of profit the FOSS support business model is not sustainable.</p><p></p><p>Companies like Red Hat exist because they are very largely subsidized by the government, which in turn means it is the taxpayers who are subsidizing the company and keeping it alive.</p><p></p><p>If it were not for the US Government, Red Hat would fall apart as a company. Because Red Hat is used mostly by US Government subcontractors.</p><p></p><p>If the average business attempted to use FOSS Red Hat products it could not achieve its technological goals and objectives without having to engage Red Hat and pay its stupid prices. That directly means that Red Hat FOSS is not really FOSS. It has dependencies that costs a lot of money to make the FOSS a possible solution.</p><p></p><p>FOSS is a specialty, niche market. A few projects that manage to make money off of FOSS is hardly an indicator of a viable business model. 99.5% of all FOSS projects could not become economically successful. Therefore, FOSS generally is not a viable business model. FOSS by its very nature - by the ideology that created and drives FOSS - is anti-capitalist, anti-government, anti-revenue and anti-profit.</p><p></p><p>When there is a list of at least a few hundred "FOSS" companies charging standard market prices with $100+ million revenue or greater, then that would be evidence that "FOSS" is actually a viable business model. I place FOSS in quotes because FOSS is not really FOSS if it requires money to be paid for add-on products or services to make it a working solution. In the example of Red Hat, its FOSS is nothing but open source software that nobody can deploy in an organization without paying Red Hat for all the dependencies. With Red Hat, nobody is getting a single character of code for free.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bazang, post: 1103122, member: 114717"] Making money from supporting FOSS is not the same as FOSS being economically viable in and of itself. FOSS companies survive by charging absurdly high prices - mostly to government agencies and government contractors. Governments pay those absurd prices because it is collected tax money and they can pay prices that are 10X the current market rate. They are not accountable to the taxpayers. Without that kind of profit the FOSS support business model is not sustainable. Companies like Red Hat exist because they are very largely subsidized by the government, which in turn means it is the taxpayers who are subsidizing the company and keeping it alive. If it were not for the US Government, Red Hat would fall apart as a company. Because Red Hat is used mostly by US Government subcontractors. If the average business attempted to use FOSS Red Hat products it could not achieve its technological goals and objectives without having to engage Red Hat and pay its stupid prices. That directly means that Red Hat FOSS is not really FOSS. It has dependencies that costs a lot of money to make the FOSS a possible solution. FOSS is a specialty, niche market. A few projects that manage to make money off of FOSS is hardly an indicator of a viable business model. 99.5% of all FOSS projects could not become economically successful. Therefore, FOSS generally is not a viable business model. FOSS by its very nature - by the ideology that created and drives FOSS - is anti-capitalist, anti-government, anti-revenue and anti-profit. When there is a list of at least a few hundred "FOSS" companies charging standard market prices with $100+ million revenue or greater, then that would be evidence that "FOSS" is actually a viable business model. I place FOSS in quotes because FOSS is not really FOSS if it requires money to be paid for add-on products or services to make it a working solution. In the example of Red Hat, its FOSS is nothing but open source software that nobody can deploy in an organization without paying Red Hat for all the dependencies. With Red Hat, nobody is getting a single character of code for free. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
