What if other things were open source?

Summary: Think of something other than software that would benefit from open source ideas, and that could be organized to meet that challenge. Get back to me.

Thomas the Tank EngineA fellow named Hank Green, writing in Boulder, Colorado, gives me a great topic for Thanksgiving discussions.

What if other products, other than software, were open source?

Green uses the example of model trains to explain how open source works. Model railroading is entirely closed source. There are over 176,000 enthusiasts out there, but most have systems that can't work with anyone else's. He concludes:

Through the power of the Internet, Open Source professionals and hobbyists took what used to be a thousand model trains scattered across the world and made them transcontinental.

Very interesting. If model train systems interoperated, however, prices would come down, and there's no assurance the number of enthusiasts would grow to keep profits humming along. Some of those proprietary operators would go out of business, too. Thus, while it may be in the interests of enthusiasts to have a single standard, it's not in the interets of the industry, so it doesn't happen.

It wasn't in the interests of the software industry to see source made freely available, either. So how did it happen?

The medium you're using now. People were able to organize themselves into projects online, across countries and across seas, then get something done everyone benefitted from.

Could that happen with model trains? Maybe. But it would require that, first, a few brave vendors support and endorse the concept, and for enthusiasts with incompatible set-ups to take another route to train-running pleasure.

So here's our Thanksgiving exercise. Think of something other than software that would benefit from open source ideas, and that could be organized to meet that challenge. Get back to me. Happy Turkey Day. (Falcons favored by three over Detroit. Give the points.)

Topic: Open Source

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

55 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Give the points?

    Hey, the Lions beat Atlanta last year - in Atlanta! I'll just be glad if no one drops DEAD during the game (seems to happen in Detroit sports).

    Open source methodology in the paper industry has given us "standard" and "legal" paper sizes, and toilet paper/paper towel/tissue standard sizes. This allowed follow-on development of containers, dispensers and high-quality versions for premium prices. This was accomplished more through expired patents than certain industries giving up their "secrets". In any event, it shows that there is STILL a market and STILL a profit to be made - while everyone enjoys low prices and great choice.
    Roger Ramjet
  • Open Source Business Models

    It's important to understand that one needs to ?buy? the ecosystem that supports open source software. In order to help enterprises understand those ecosystems, Business Integration Technology has identified six basic open source business models: the ?Lite? version of a commercial product, enterprise vendors embrace of open source to show ?I?m Open?, the spin-off of commercial ?Legacy? products into open source, the dual strategy of free and supported ?Parallel Universes,? the ?Jump Start? opening of an un-launched commercial product, and true open source ?Community? projects.

    You may find our white paper on this topic interesting:

    http://BusinessIntegrationTechnology.com/PDF/OpenSourceBusinessModels.pdf
    fdomke
  • Other than open source? Ummm, open source fails too.

    There is no benefit in open source other than destroying jobs.
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • Troll Alert... Do not feed. (NT)

      NT
      Rokstar83
    • FOSS destroys jobs?

      FOSS destroys jobs and you have no Axe to grind.

      Ya, right.

      By destroying jobs do you mean moving them out of the USA to China and India, like Microsoft is doing? Or do you mean just hiring workers as temps to avoid benefits and vacations?

      Or, do you mean just moving the manufacturing, packaging and distribution over seas, like Microsoft did?

      Or, perhaps you were thinking of how Microsoft moved is sales offices to Nevada because Nevada does NOT charge sales tax? And this despite Ballmer's admonition to Oregon and Washington's tax-payers to "pay their fair share of taxes". What's the sales tax on $50B/year? Do you think those taxes could help our economy if M$ PAID THEIR FAIR SHARE? (That's just ONE of the many reasons why I swap an 's' for a '$' in their name or abbrev.)

      Is that what you had in mind? If you are not an M$Fanboy are you a Microsoft astroturfer like Prendergast? You know Prendergast and his M$ front org, the one that sent letters above signatures of dead people, protesting the treatment of MS by the DOJ during the trial? Sure you do. Did you ever figure out how they got those dead people, some for over 80 years, to sign those letters?

      Here's one for you fanboy: The latest poll of XBox 360 users shows a failure rate of about 15%. Right on par with the quality of Microsoft OS and applications.
      GreyGeek
      • Dude

        Haven't you heard the no-ax story of how he's a small time developer and open source scares him cause he don't know how to change? Also how he hates the GPL cause it don't let him steal code? You just haven't paid attention to no axe. Anyhow if open source swallows up some developers and vendors so much the better. Ive said it before that you can't go wrong by following IBM. They've been around a long time and will be around for many more years. If IBM says opens sounce is the future people better listen.
        DemonX
        • which planet have you been on

          They were about to be extinct like the dinosaur in the early 1990's.
          IBM's getting out of most divisions eg HDD sold to Hitachi, PC sold to Lenovo and they are growing their services division.

          Next when competitors follow the same model where is IBM able to survive given its bloated nature.
          zzz1234567890
          • You're so funny.

            At no point in history has IBM's gross revenues ever been less than around 3 times Microsoft's. IBM, in the latest Fortune 500, was 9th. Microsoft: 47th.

            About to be extinct? Oh, really? Geez, Microsoft would love to be "extinct" to the same numbers that IBM is posting.

            And you'll love this: IBM's mainframe business is actually increasing. At the same time, earlier this year Microsoft had to downgrade its estimation of Windows sales for 2005 by 7%.
            Yen_z
          • and you are so ignorant

            At no point in history has IBM's gross revenues ever been less than around 3 times Microsoft's. IBM, in the latest Fortune 500, was 9th. Microsoft: 47th.
            IBM's revenues are around 89 to 96 billion. Microsoft's are between 36.8billion and 39.7billion. Looks like you cant do your math.



            About to be extinct? Oh, really? Geez, Microsoft would love to be "extinct" to the same numbers that IBM is posting.
            No Microsoft would not love to be "extinct". From what you write it implies that IBM loves to be "extinct" with the numbers it is posting. I have no problem with that.



            And you'll love this: IBM's mainframe business is actually increasing. At the same time, earlier this year Microsoft had to downgrade its estimation of Windows sales for 2005 by 7%.

            Definitly love it. Mainframe business increasing is true but the units shipped are falling.
            If Microsoft had to downgrade Windows sales estimates by 7% they should have missed the numbers. The fact is they beat the expected numbers.
            zzz1234567890
          • IBM is amazingly successful

            Calving off unprofitable subsiduaries doesn't mean anything. This is a normal part of business life.
            The figures show IBM is incredibly successful.
            Frankly, it's amazing how deftly they've moved from the strategic position they were in in 1988 (when I went to an IBM show, and they were just adopting open standards), to the position they are in now.

            It is very hard to make money out of Hard disk drives and PCs, and margins are tight, due to massive competition.
            When a sub-unit of IBM drops below a given profit margin, they sell it off. Their business model has worked for nearly a century now.

            There is no other corporation with such a vast patent armoury, and it is getting bigger faster than any other companies' patent armoury. Additionally the patents don't appear to be the trivial patents people get all hot and bothered about.
            I guess they must have some excellent genuine scientists and engineers working there. (maybe they treat them really well).
            hipparchus2001
          • half of IBM's revenues

            are from managing desktops that belong to corporations. Sure their revenues are increasing but doing what - managing desktops.

            Sure IBM has lot of patents and invests in R&D but its R&D investments are decreasing compared to its services division.

            IBM is headed from a tech company to a services company (manage other companies IT gear).
            zzz1234567890
      • dont foam at the mouth

        It isnt Microsoft that shipped development jobs to India. They keep their core development in US.
        Its IBM that shipped the programming jobs to India. In the last couple of years they have laid off about 25,000 jobs in US and other high cost countries and hired an equal amount in India. Their reasoning - we go where the skills are. It doesnt take much to realize that the quality here and there is the same, its just they dont want to hire and give benefits to the American people.
        zzz1234567890
        • evil IBM?

          I agree that quality here and there is the same. The thing is there it costs less.
          Hiring people overseas is not illegal (currently) after all. And it is not that bad. It gives people a chance for economic development. I don't say that IBM is a charity organization. They goal is to profit. But the outcomes of their actions may be not that evil.
          mestanzade@...
        • evil IBM?

          I agree that quality here and there is the same. The thing is there it costs less.
          Hiring people overseas is not illegal (currently) after all. And it is not that bad. It gives people a chance for economic development. I don't say that IBM is a charity organization. They goal is to profit. But the outcomes of their actions may be not that evil.
          mestanzade@...
        • Wrrrrrrong!

          Microsoft have shipped development jobs everywhere in the world. The only difference is that they are sneakier about it than IBM. Sucked in! (-:
          perthpenguinista
    • Oh really?

      ---There is no benefit in open source other than destroying jobs.---

      Really? Tell that to Bram Cohen and the MPAA:
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_movies
      tic swayback
    • Good

      People who complain about things that "destroy jobs" are really complaining about the fact that these things increase competition and force people to work harder or more efficiently and be more creative.

      Some jobs deserve to be destroyed.
      Handrew
    • NWOR

      .
      thelemite
    • My job relies 100% on open source

      Without Open Source, I would have no job. If you were fired for incompetency, don't blame it on your competition.
      perthpenguinista
    • My job relies 100% on open source

      Without Open Source, I would have no job. If you were fired for incompetency, blaming it on your competition is a sure way to stay unemployable. Get off your but and learn something new.
      perthpenguinista