[LINK] SAP slams open source 'socialism'

[Deus Ex Machina]

Craig Sanders [cas at taz.net.au] wrote:

> as is usual with loony libertarian 'analyses' of the real world
> (including economics) it only "works" when the thing being analysed is
> reduced to some absurdly simple model.
> 
> the really overt flaw in your model is that the real world contains more
> than one programmer and more than one 'consumer'. it even contains many
> people who are both producers and consumers of software (open source,
> proprietary, or both).

its not a flaw its a simplification for the sake of illustrating a
point. 


> even if what you are saying was true (it isn't): so what? the world
> doesn't owe the programmer a living, any more than it owes hansom cab
> drivers a living. if their skills are obsolete, then they should find
> something else to do.

thats the point they are not obsolete, they are killed for
ideology with no innovative replacement. if X' was the equivalent
of innovation say lead printing type to computer printing type, then a spin off would be
higher value jobs. but its not the case. X' is not an innovation over X.

> > in your foss support model the only job created is a 50c/hour call
> > center job in bengladesh, a far cry from the $50/h programing job she
> > used to have.
> 
> perhaps that's the only job available to stupid people. However, anyone
> with enough brains to be a programmer will quickly realise that there's
> more money to be made providing installation, support, and customisation
> services for the people & companies that use the software.
> 
> there will ALWAYS be good money in those tasks. that's because most
> people are wilfully ignorant when it comes to computers - they don't
> know and they don't want to know, so they will always be dependant on
> those who are willing to learn.

these are all already included in X. regardless these are mostly
dumbed down mostly non creative jobs.

> in fact, since the programmer doesn't have to write the entire program
> him/herself, there is MORE potential work for them. they can build on
> what others have created and use that as a base for their own labour.
> the barrier to entry is lowered enormously, they don't have to spend a
> year or three developing the entire project, they can just concentrate
> on improving and customising it.

the falacy here is that extra work exists for the programmer just
because the consumer didnt pay for X'. firstly in the case where the
TCO for X and X' is close there little to no extra money. secondly
in the case where the TCO for X' is much lower there is still less money
for the programmer then in the before picture and the consumer may
allocate it anywhere. just because there is extra money doesnt lead
to extra need for further software.

if X' was innovative it might create new needs, but X' and X are
equivalent or at best X' is close to X. if X didnt create new needs then
X' certainly is going to. in all scenarios there is less money going to
the programmer.

at best altruistic ideas from the programmer (giving away software)
have reduced her take home pay.

> > even though X' is "common wealth" it becomes meaningless in the
> > programmers search for programming work.
> >
> > where is the lie craig?
> 
> the lie is that an individual can't make money from open source. many
> do. i do.

so do I but neither you nor I write software. what you are telling me
is your unemployed programmer needs to stop programming to make a living.

Vic