[nylug-talk] The future of Zimbra after Microsoft's bid for Yahoo!

[Ruben Safir]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:23:55PM -0500, Ron Guerin wrote:
> Ron Guerin wrote:
> > Kevin Mark wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:44:38PM -0500, George Bourozikas wrote:
> > 
> >>> Also, has the Yahoo! Public License (which is used for Zimbra Open Source) 
> >>> been scrutinized in any way?
> >>>
> >> If this YPL is indeed 'open-source-like', then at leaast folks should be
> >> able to fork it and work around any issues. If not, well, then it
> >> wouldn't matter anyway.
> > 
> > When it comes to stuff like this, the license is almost beside the 
> > point.  If not developed by a company paying developers, it won't be 
> > developed at all.  One thing you've never seen, and aren't likely to 
> > ever see, are community developers hard at work on groupware that's 
> > actually useful to anyone.  


This statement is very factual not only about groupware, but also accounting
packages, inventory control systems, healthcare software, retail sales software
and a whole slew of other software which involves things that aren't fun or
interesting from the POV of a developer.


> >There is a prevailing attitude that this 
> > stuff is beneath them, and that the companies that want it should pay 
> > people to write it.

This I believe is not correct.  I believe that these things just don't
have enough glory or capture the imagination well enough.  I firmly
believbe that for Free Software to continue to develop that it must be
supplemented by comercial endevors that do grunt work.  This is not to say
that these things shouldn't and can't be done profitably and remain free 
software.  It does mean that a true Free Software business model for many of
these kinds of applications hasn't yet emerged.

For most of these kinds of software the payment is in support contracts.
Someone will eventually understand this, but it hasn't yet emerged.

> 
> I'm snarky before my caffeine.  I really don't mean to take potshots at 
> whatever's out there, which may be useful to people.  But, for all of 
> the faults in the Outlook/Exchange implementation, the model is very 
> popular.  

Eh - its sold in preinstalled packages with glossing pamphlets.  There is
nothing truly good about the Outlook/Exchange implementation but most
buyers are simply braindead.

> Geeks may have trouble understanding it, but all consultants 
> know when you show someone a mail program, one of the first questions 
> they're going to ask is "does it do shared calendars?"  Telling them 
> you've got some external or web app that does shared calendars pretty 
> much drains the excitement out of the conversation.

We also need a better sales force.  Its the first thing I'm going to do after
I become CEO of Novel.


Ruben

-- 
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software

So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world  - RI Safir 1998

http://fairuse.nylxs.com  DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"

"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."

"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt.  I guess you missed that one."

© Copyright for the Digital Millennium