Hosting for just $3.88/month! Find out MORE!

Archive for the 'Open Source' Category

Getting ideas out of the heads

Published on 30 October, 2006 in Entrepreneur and Open Source. 0 Comments

As business grow and more people join the company, the one challenge that I constantly face is how to get ideas out of my head and into the head of people who will execute and realise the ideas.

This may sounds simple until you try to untangle all the strands of detail in an idea and hand them out in manageable bits to different people.

A business idea typically consist of massive interaction of different business functions. So an entrepreneur not only has to wear different hats, he/she also must be able to help other wear their hats.

Taking this a step further, how can I get the ideas out of the head of individual employee and disseminate to the other employees? This falls into the domain of Knowledge Management.

Is knowledge management a big, fancy term only for big companies, MNCs? Can entrepreneurs successfully leverage knowledge management to their advantage? How?

An area that I’m exploring, implementing and testing.

Catching up on Open Source

Published on 23 December, 2005 in Business Models and Open Source. 0 Comments

Spent most of this morning catching up with Open Source developments. More money are obviously being poured into Open Source. News.com has an article on this more than a month ago. Commented time and again, open source is still searching for business model.

Coming up with an open source application is getting more difficult in each and every application category. Most major categories already has one or two "category killer app": operating system - Linux, BSD variants; webserver - Apache; web browser - Firefox; database - mySQL, postgreSQL; office suite - Open Office; the list goes on.

Notice that non of these "killers" are company (with exception of mySQL). Apache, Open Office, Mozilla operates under some form of foundation. Mozilla had went commercial though. Most of these "killer" projects are supported by mammoths like IBM, HP, Sun, even Google, contributing resources into fundamental development which greatly benefits their other commercial activities at the higher end.

Foundational opensource projects such as these will keep on improving and the foundation thicken.

In thinking about it I came up with the Open Source Maturity Model. This model can applies to a single open source project or the whole open source macrocosm.

Foundational

This is what had been built, providing a firm ground for growth. Thus Linux provides the operating system, Apache provides the webserver function.

Works are done here to consolidate and stablize functions, improve usability.

As the Foundational frontial pushes forward, developing functions became stable and people/company/government start jumping on to use Open Source.

Many ad-hoc personal or even corporate participation occurs in this level. The motivation is generally not to create a business model out of it. It can be viewed as patching leaks here and there in the foundation.

While venture capital may not be interested here, enterprising companies could start a thriving business supporting other businesses that are getting getting on.

Cutting edge

This is where much of the buzz, expectations, hopes and hypes are generated. It represent some form of the "future".

For many companies and individual, this is exciting and represents opportunity to direct the future. For those waiting to jump on to open source, it represents uncertainties. A lot of technologies that were expected to be killer, fizzled out.

Most of the time the cutting-edge is dominated by big corporates or academic research.

Transitional

This is the "now" in open source maturity. Things are happening but the dust has not settled - like "Will the OpenDocument standard be widely accepted?", "Will Ruby on Rails trump PHP and Java?"
Many big corporations support work in this transitional stage for a number of reasons.

  1. It could potential direct development in their favour.
  2. It link up the foundational functions to high-value services near the cutting-edge.
  3. Entity looking to get on to Open Source are taking cue from what the "technology leaders" are doing.

Venture capital typically invest in companies near the frontier of this stage. Projects or services that are gaining momentum or going to fill anticipated needs.

The transitional frontial is ever moving forward. This means that invested companies probably had started at or nearer to the cutting-edge. To win, it is important here to consoldidate and become foundational, be the only one or two left standing when the dust settles.

What do I see from this?

  1. Major categories had all but disappeared.
  2. Most ideas will tend towards the niche.
  3. As an open source category matures, the emerging winner will take majority of the share.

The case against Open Office

Published on 5 October, 2005 in Free Desktop, Online and Open Source. 0 Comments

Two editorial commentary:

ZDNet - In defense of OpenOffice.org

eWeek -
Massachusetts Makes Dumb Move Official

A case of Microsoft doing Blog marketing? Well one can only speculate. There’s nothing new in buying media opinion, happens in the paper, happens in the blog.

At the same time, saying something controversial like what they did generate more responses (Ou admitted 400) than a run-of-the-mill piece. Remember, these magazines are in the business of creating readership.

Judge for yourself.

Urgh!! Lost my content

Published on 2 October, 2005 in Development, Online and Open Source. 0 Comments

My two hours worth of editing gone, when the computer hang. Only myself to blame for not hitting the save button more often.

I think the single most wanted feature for an AJAX based application must be auto-save. Not sure if any open source application has done that.

Too tired to rewrite the post now.

On to free development softwares

Published on 28 September, 2005 in Development, Free Desktop and Open Source. 0 Comments

Since software developers are typically people in the know and are more savvy, my angle will be more of sharing and exploring ideas, tips and experiences. This is something new I’m trying.

First a quick round up of free softwares I am using and where the strong holds are still to be broken.

Category
Currently using
Free?
Open Source?
 Alternative
Programming PHP
Y
Y
  
Programming Perl
Y
Y
  
Programming Ruby
Y
Y
  
Version control SVN
Y
Y
  
Version control client TortoiseSVN
Y
Y
  
Code editor Vim
Y
Y
  
SSH Putty
Y
Y
  
SFTP/FTP Filezilla
Y
Y
  
IDE Eclipse
Y
Y
  
Webserver Apache
Y
Y
  
Webserver package XAMPP
Y
Y
  
Compare/merging Winmerge
Y
Y
  
Design IDE Dreamweaver
N
N
 Nvu
Photo/Graphics Gimp Y Y  

Anything else I missed?

Mac rules!

Published on 7 September, 2005 in Business Models, Online and Open Source. 0 Comments

Well no, I’m not a Mac fanatic. In fact I have never own a Mac. The longest I had ever used a Mac is a few hours. That was to type a lab report out of desperation, all the PCs in the computer lab are taken.

But I do have one sweet memory with Mac. Allow me to digess.

Back in university days I started a business providing Internet services - setting up websites, connecting to the Internet etc. A guy called me up to help connect his computer to the Internet. So happily I went.

Now this was 1994/5, connection to the internet was through something called SLIP, configuration was not really plug-n-play. That was not the biggest problem though. The problem was his computer turned out to be a Mac and it was in Japanese!
The short story is I got it working! (I later learned that the interface language could be simply switch to English)

Sweet.

So why do I think Mac rules?

During the era of over expensive Mac, I dislike Mac fans. Most (all?) were belligerent and refused to see how the inexpensive PC could do all the typesetting and graphic manipulation that they claimed only Mac can.

And why should a startup cough out 10k to buy a Mac for a hotshot designer when spending 4k could buy a top end PC? Not to mention the hotshot designer does not know how to even troubleshoot. So you have IT support staff doing extra extra to support Mac.

That was before.

The new Apple
Apple woke up from the lofty perch and came down closer to earth. At the same time it make remarkable changes, introduced new concepts.

There are skeptics and there are fanatics. But I’m a pragmatic. I think Mac is heading towards rulership.

Three gigantic changes that Apple made shook the foundation of its believer (and non-believers).

  1. Lowering the price
  2. Changing the internal to Intel
  3. Changing the OS to unix based

These changes strengthen the believers and converted many non-believers.

Lowering the price
Mac is no longer the domain of the "can-afford". It is now a mass affordable object. (Note it is an object not a computer.)
Computing is not a function any more. It is a fashion statement, a declaration of taste. A lady with a Mac is, well, sophisticated.

My girlfriend wants to buy a Mac.

Sony and Acer with their red notebooks. But what about a pearl-white Powerbook? Take your pick.

Changing the internal to Intel
Just this year Apple announced that they will stop using PowerPC and start using Intel chip for Mac. According to Apple’s announcement, this will start in 2006.

This event had not play out yet but expect it to have far reaching implication. On the top of the list would be application developers for the Mac platform.

Despite interest, development on PowerPc platform had been slow to gather momentum. The smaller developer base means a smaller knowledge base, lessr support and fewer tools. Moving to the Intel platform could bring a larger developer base to bare.

This, together with the charm of the unix-based OS X could unleash a blooming of applications, utilities and tools like never before.

Changing the OS to unix based
Another classic move by Apple. Often cited as an example of Apple’s ability to change sucessfully and why the Intel switch will succeed.

But it does not stop there.

Before, the Mac is the designer’s dream machine. Now, the Mac is is fast becoming the programmer’s dream machine.

Don’t believe me? Search some of the blogs and see those declaring their deflection.

Programmers like to play with cool stuffs and Mac is cool. With price reduced and the familiar unix platform - true unix command line (not a dos one), lots of unix tools, it’s a no brainer to switch.

And Apple is well aware. (Or was it their plan to hit the developers crowd from day one?) Just look at the amount of developer resources Apple is building up, affiliation with Open Source, Cocoa, Java, Carbon, Darwin.

Enough to make a programmer salivate.

Like Google, it is a very smart move to target the developers. Convert them and the unopinionated typical users will be persuaded to go along. Less user support because the power users will be showing the way.

Mac raising
As for me, I’m still using a PC and Windows. I’m still aiming to go over to Linux. I am not planning (yet) to buy a Mac soon.

But Mac will rule. I felt it coming, mark my word.

Open source still searching for business model

Published on 1 September, 2005 in Business Models, Online and Open Source. 0 Comments

Forbes runs an article
Has Open Source Become A Marketing Slogan?

This comment is of most interest

Startups are latching onto the hype around “open sourceâ€� to gain interest from venture capitalists and earn street credibility with the FOSS community, but then proceed with a business model predicated on making money by selling closed source code.

This is indeed the observation. Despite the marketing pitches, most open source companies are taking a non-open source route.

Biggest problem with open source is making money. In The Emerging Economic Paradigm of Open Source, Bruce Perens tried to explain why open source make sense. But logical reasoning sometimes does work in an illogical market.

I still believe in Open Source. Only time will tell how things unfold. But pioneers are made in the the dust of unknown not after the dust settles.

A Free Desktop roundup

Published on 10 August, 2005 in Free Desktop and Open Source. 0 Comments

(Update: See Free desktop applications roundup)

A quick round up of free softwares I am using and where the strong holds are still to be broken.

Anyone know any good suggestions for the few unknown (?), please leave a comment.

Category
Currently using
Free?
Open Source?
 Alternative
Web browser Firefox
Y
Y
Email client Thunderbird
Y
Y
Instant Messaging Gaim
Y
Y
IP Telephony Skype
Y
N
SFTP/FTP client Filezilla
Y
Y
File compression 7-Zip
Y
Y
Text Editing Notepad 2
Y
Y
Office suite Open Office
Y
Y
Graphic viewer Irfanview
Y
N
 ?
Graphic editor Photoshop
N
N
 Gimp
Vector graphic Illustrator
N
N
 ?
Diagraming Visio
N
N
 Dia
PDF writer PDF Creator
Y
Y
Media player VLC
Y
Y
CD Writer WinXP builtin
N
N
 ?
Information manager Palm Desktop
Y
N
 ?
Password management Password Safe
Y
Firewall -
Anti-virus ClamWin
Y
Y
Operating system Windows XP
N
N
 Linux

Open Source in Asia

Published on 25 July, 2005 in Open Source. 0 Comments

 Open source is fast gaining momentum in Asia.

Asian Open Source Centre is taking shape quite nicely since the last time I saw it. MIMOS Open Source, the Malaysian government lead open source initiative is driving it.

Thoughts on “The Emerging Economic Paradigm of Open Source”

Published on 19 July, 2005 in Business Models, Open Source and Readings. 0 Comments

Source: http://perens.com/Articles/Economic.html

Open Source developers have, perhaps without
conscious intent, created a new and surprisingly successful
economic paradigm for the production of software. Examining that
paradigm can answer a number of important questions.

Bruce Perens is of course the noted spokeperson for Open Source. Looks like he is now researching Open Source in George Washington University. What a great job to have!

Here I am quoting some key points from the article that caught my attention, adding my thoughts on them.

It’s not immediately obvious how Open Source[1] works
economically. … Fortunately, if you look more deeply into the economic function of
software in general, it’s easy to establish that Open Source is both
sustainable and of tremendous benefit to the overall economy.

Exactly what I like to learn. So far I have not seen any scholarly analysis (I’m sure there are but I have not seen them) on the economic viability of open source.

In Raymond’s model, work is rewarded with an intangible
return rather than a monetary one. … return is still not as direct as
in proprietary software development.

Indeed, this had been a stumbling block in open source business model. Are we hinting at the service model?

Around 30% of the
software that is written is sold as software[2]

Interesting data. The real question though is what percentage od revenue the 30% accounts. Also even if 70% of the software are made to order, it does not translate into a case for open source. Either many companies are competing for that 70% of the software market, making each slice of the pie unrewarding. Or that 70% are dominated by big players like IBM, EDS, Accenture.

A new economic
phenomenon is operating, and to explain it we’ll have to look
more deeply into the economics of software production.

The secondary economic effect caused by
all of the people and businesses who use an enabling technology
is greater than the primary economic effect of the dollars paid
for that technology.

On the individual level, we can understand this as the fact that investment in software is repaid, many times over, by the return made by the business.

Today, we
need software to do
business! Indeed, we need it so badly that even though most
businesses don’t sell software, any business of 50 people or
greater is likely to employ a programmer, web designer, or a
script-programming systems administrator[5]

Another interesting data. This is certainly true of some companies I know. What diffenentiates these smaller companies though is being able to grasp the concept and being able to actuate it.

Certainly this is the case in China where leveraging IT is an issue. It is also where I see entrepreneurs (like myself) have a chance. Open source can be an ally as we shall see.

Obviously, it would be a mistake to Open Source
your business differentiators, because then your competitor’s
business might use them to become as desirable to the customer as
your own business.

This is key!

Open source and close source is not an either-or decision as many make it to be. There is an equilibrium point. Right now what we are seeing is an increase in importance in open source and a decline in close source. It will take a while before the equilibrium point is reached.

Perhaps 90% of the software in any business is
non-differentiating. Much of it is referred to as infrastructure, the base upon which
differentiating technology is built.

The open source activists can read it as meaning 90% of software can eventually be opensource!

Now the real question for business is if they need a software not available open source now what do they do? They could wait for someone to develop it, or they could buy a close source product. The smart company however should develop and open source it. Sounds counter intuitive? The economic paradigms for software development might provide some clues.

  • Retail.
  • In-House and Contract.
  • Efforts At Collaboration Without Open Source
    Licensing.
  • Open Source.

The paradigms are different in

  • How they distribute the cost of development.
  • How they distribute the risk of failure.
  • Their efficiency in funding software development rather
    than overheads of the process.
  • The degree to which others can be excluded from using the
    software.

The next few sections of the article goes on the discuss the different paradigms.

Note that the argument are in the software user perspective. So if I am starting a software company based on open source, I still need to figure out a model and how to make money from it.

Open Source is generally
not a good mechanism for
developing differentiating software.

What can I gather from this statement?

Open source is a strategy for company that software is the enabler. So a company that generate profits from elsewhere can fund an open source development.

So for an open source software company an idea is to find such company to fund a project. For now this company may need to be an evangelising company, marketing the benefits of open source and getting funding companies onboard.

How is this different from selling close source development? Indeed there is no need to incur the overhead of educating open source.

So the article looked at, among source of fund, Companies With a Single Open Source Program As Their Main Product which can be divided into several
categories:

  • Mixed Open Source and proprietary licensing model.
  • A core Open Source program with proprietary software
    accessories.
  • Pure Open Source plus services model.

The rest of the article are very much evangelical arguments for open source that can be employed for telling people (including customers) about open source.

Fruit for thoughts for company wishing to adopt an open source strategy directly or indirectly.

I am thinking hard…