Good enough or Great enough: getting it for free or paying for it

In writing my book I've been using the phrase that "some solutions are good enough" for most people to use in their everyday work and job. Much like seeing Microsoft Works being good enough for most people, including some small companies, to use everyday and to purchase Microsoft's Office Suite for the most part is overkill.

However, I'm come across a new perspective: are some solutions great enough to pay for them?

Because Open Source software is now used in a large portion of the Fortune 500 companies and has lowered their cost of purchasing this software to free and the software is good enough to use in everyday work, purchasing software from a vendor that will sell you a license now begs the question: is the solution worth the price you are now paying?

So instead of "good enough" being the newest game in town there is a new game called is it "great enough?" This new game is now causing many a vendor to see if the features and benefits it gives it's customers are truly what they need and want.

Due your due diligence on researching your computers solutions before you spend your hard earned cash.

Start Ups Need to Learn from Big Business Big Brother

One of the things in talking with many a small business is that they don't have the manpower or time to research all of the solutions for their business because they're too busy with their primary jobs: getting and keeping cusotmers. So, in lieu of researching for themselves they can watch they can watch what their big brothers big business are doing and learn from not only their mistakes but also where they are heading. As Frank van Wensveen in his article states

There are good reasons for using open source software (OSS), and I've learned those reasons through 15 years of experience with more traditional, commercial or closed source applications.

But what this experience teaches Start Ups is the sometimes higher quality can cost us just like poor quality can cost us, but poor quality delivers poor results even though costs are the same. That's why when costs are similar, you next look at the value of what you get.

Is Open Source Really Just as Good? A rebuttal

Michael Jung has written a blog about Open Source and is it good enough, especially from a Venture Capitalists point of view and those who look for that next big thing. But one thing you will note, there is a lot of FUD(Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) in his questionings. But let's take it one step at a time.

What’s the ecosystem that they’re trying to build?

Now let's take this first question. My first question is: who cares? I mean, when Linus Torvalds decided to Open Source the kernel of Linux, did he decide to design an ecosystem? Not hardly, but he did want to solve one problem: having other people contribute to the problem as a team where he might be weakest.

Will there be lots of people who will know (or want to know) how to work with the technology?

Again, my first impression: who cares? Normally the "Next Big Thing" are for those that have a nose for the future and even then they may not be right most of the time. We don't have a good idea of what the future holds for us especially in technology. Who would have thought that Open Source software would have has such an impact today compared with 10 years ago. Look at the history of technology and you'll see the technology dinosauers that have been killed off, and even some that remain, and notice that most people are wrong about the demise of them.

Are there vendors who can provide great support?

Again, I say: who cares? In this case, the business that is buying it cares, but the ones willing to take the risk may be in for the greater benefits if they decide to take the risk. But most businesses, especially smaller ones, are not willing to take risks with newer technologies, they wait until the Fortune 500 folks take a gander at it to see if it's worthwhile and then procede with caution with their own decisions. Bottom line: no one knows whether a product or service will take off and only time will tell if and when there will be a tipping point of a growing ecosystem being built.

And is there a path of innovation that will help the ecosystem grow?

Now here's a question that I can answer: it depends on how the innovators define the ecosystem and whether it will grow or not. The more restrictive the technology is (i.e. Intellectual Property) toward growth the less or smaller the path will be for others. No different than world governments. The more restrictive the less growth, the less restrictive the more growth. So, if you want your technology to take off, get liberal with it.

Open Source is here to stay and will continue to grow and companies would will be well advised to keep it on their radar screen. The real question is: are the VCs and others keeping their fingers on the pulse of the health of technologies or are they keeping their wetted finger in the air monitoring the winds of rumors and smoke signals.

Update: Take a look at Vince Cerf's comment at Doc Searls' "Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes" for a quick and more precise comment about being open.

Delivering value with Linux

Brian Proffitt has written a very good article "Delivering value with Linux" concerning Linux and the loss of Linux "selling techniques" by various Linux advocates. But there is a missing point to his argument: it's not that businesses don't want to sell Linux, but that to sell Linux requires a lot more work to sell than Windows does. In other words, it's an up hill battle to sell Linux and since most businesses earn money by what they sell, which would you go after, the easier money of selling what most people want or the harder way of making money selling something which many may not be aware of?

Now, to counter this argument, Linux advocates need to change how this is discussed. There are a number of things that need to change. First, there is the mindset that most computer businesses get more and more services money from the same customer but at a greater and greater cost of poor quality to the customer, i.e. a bigger and bigger piece of the IT budget pie. Second, that if the businesses sell Linux it has now moved from a "getting more from one customer" to getting more and more of the market share (i.e. more and more) of the number of customers because you will visit the customer less often. Hence, quality is a significant factor here.

Now, most businesses will go after the first part to get more and more of the customer's IT budget until the customers pain is so great that the pain to remain with the current situation that it is too great to stay and thereby resulting in change. But this change can come from two perspectives: the business changes to reduce their charges to the customer and the customer stays with the business, or, the customer is so fed up that they change businesses/vendors regardless of what is offered. This last change is known as the migration factor, from Windows to Linux or Windows to Mac.

I've been selling Linux, Windows, and Mac for a number of years and in order to stay in business you have to make money. While most computer sellers want the "easy bucks" of what people want, the longer haul will be Linux and Free and Open Source software (FOSS). While the foundation for Linux is superior to Windows, the first and second floors (desktop and applications) are the next area in which Linux will gain ground.

But, since most computer purchases are "enterprise level" purchases, Linux will only make more inroads to Windows area when you see Linux on the Fortune 500 desktops. Why? Because once people use it at work they'll want to "bring work home with them" and will want the same thing at home. Once it has started in the Fortune 500 then the medium and smaller businesses will take notice. Unless, of course, the small business is like Ernie Ball's Guitar business did when he dropped Windows for Linux. Ernie is a leader. But many small businesses are followers.

Linux has the better value for sure in many ways, but getting people to change is the hardest part. People don't want to change. It took a friend a year and a half to get me to see and then begin using Linux. Most people will be the same. Linux selling should be in for the long haul.

Intellectual Property and Derivative Works

Ok, I just signed a new Intellectural Property document because I'm beginning a new job. What I was told, but have not gotten a copy of what I signed, was that any information that I saw and if I were to leave the company and used that information to create a new product that this company owns my idea.

It reminds me of license agreement I read about some Excel macros that were sold to others and the license agreement stated that if I added to his work that he owned all derivative, i.e. added, changed, or otherwise improved, works to his program.

One of my skills is a "connect the dots" skill, that when I see certain pieces of information I can "connect the dots" to arrive at conclusions that most people may not see. So it would seem that the only to be legally bound by any IP agreement is that someone would have to find public information via Google and "connect the dots" in order not to loose out on any future income to get out of their economic doldrums.

But what I find so interesting is the "legal" approach to this issue rather than a "let's build it together" approach. Rather than a, forgive this poor analogy, of a "slave and owner" viewpoint that is taken it now bomes a "partnership" like Jim Collins expresses in his "Good to Great" book. It would seem that the out of the gate while sets the stage, there is very little "Let's build it together" in making things better. It reminds me of the story of the goose that laid the golden egg. Greed got to those that wanted it faster and better and killed the goose rather than letting things mature at the rate at which they would grow and be more inclusive. Imagine what a company could do if they were to say "Hey, you've got a great idea, let's work together to build it." When you read that 70% of the people working are not happy with where they are working, is it really the work or the organization that is making things the way they are?

For me, it's making the world a better place, not that I want to own the world.