6 ms·

Sometime I wonder if it is possible to open source everything without becoming some sort of service company, like Redhat. The only example I can think of is ma

by kiba 15y ago

Sometime I wonder if it is possible to open source everything without becoming some sort of service company, like Redhat. The only example I can think of is makerbot industries in which their core technologies are open source.

fendrak 15y ago
makerbot has the distinct advantage of having open-sourced a (largely) physical product. For me at least, paying them for the bits and pieces to put their printer together would be an order of magnitude less effort than compiling and installing some software downloaded from the internet. They still offer a valuable service in manufacturing parts, and hence don't have to just sell support to make a living.
- nickpinkston 15y ago
  This is a great feature of open source hardware! Arduino has shown that there are plenty of platform plays in the physical world. The MakerBot builds on the RepRap mostly, and makes money doing the leg work of getting the parts to you easy / quick / cheap. Now the tons (10+ projects?) of clones coming out build on this platform. Excited to see the future of open hardware.
brandall10 15y ago
This is addressed in the article - "Ok, then what shouldn't I open source? That's easy. Don't open source anything that represents core business value. Here are some examples of what we don't open source and why: Core GitHub Rails app (easier to sell when closed) The Jobs Sinatra app (specially crafted integration with github.com)"
dhx 15y ago
GitHub _is_ service company. The primary advantage they have over competitors is a trusted brand name. This name has been built, in part, by engaging and contributing to the open source community. If GitHub were to open source _all_ of their software, some copycat sites may appear. These sites would not have a trusted name, thousands of well known open source projects backing them up and the expertise to properly run an instance of GitHub. As long as GitHub doesn't try charging users too much to use their service, there is no reason for people to use competitors to save a few dollars a month (reliability is far more important than a few dollars here and there). Some open source projects may decide to operate their own infrastructure. However, this is highly unlikely because GitHub _as a service_ is much easier and more reliable than an independently managed instance. If GitHub can retain the open source community, they become "the hub" that everyone wants to be part of. As long as GitHub is known to support open source in a meaningful way, given the resources available, I'm sure they'd benefit from hundreds of open source projects improving upon and patching GitHub code. I think they could quite readily open source _all_ of their software.
- cschep 15y ago
  Certainly no one would buy the enterprise version of Github if it was free though. Just a thought.
  - quadhome 15y ago
    In the same way that no one would buy RHEL?
    - alexhawket 15y ago
      If Github went in that direction, they would have to sell services to Enterprise clients to maintain/deploy the client's Github installation instead of selling the software itself.
    - audioHack 15y ago
      Complexity of self-support versus value of paid support. Something like RHEL, the support is worth it to many businesses. Something like Github... I could see it being less of a priority once it is up and running.
      - dhx 15y ago
        The costs of setting up a geographically redundant GitHub clone and continuously updating software and configuration are far in excess of the mere $200/month GitHub charges for their Platinum plan: unlimited users, unlimited public repositories and 125 private repositories. Even the Bronze plan for $25/month with 10 private repositories is exceptional value to businesses that only develop a few pieces of software. At GitHub's price points, a manager would be crazy to take on the risk, expense and effort of setting up their own clone. The obvious "but..." excuses don't even apply because: 1. GitHub offers enterprise "run GitHub from your own server room" services for companies that have greater needs for confidentiality/customisability. 2. Private organisations can take their source code and other data with them. This means that users are free to move elsewhere (regardless of whether GitHub is entirely open sourced) if GitHub suddenly decides to charge $1,000/month/user.

by kiba 15y ago

fendrak 15y ago

makerbot has the distinct advantage of having open-sourced a (largely) physical product. For me at least, paying them for the bits and pieces to put their printer together would be an order of magnitude less effort than compiling and installing some software downloaded from the internet. They still offer a valuable service in manufacturing parts, and hence don't have to just sell support to make a living.

nickpinkston 15y ago
This is a great feature of open source hardware! Arduino has shown that there are plenty of platform plays in the physical world. The MakerBot builds on the RepRap mostly, and makes money doing the leg work of getting the parts to you easy / quick / cheap. Now the tons (10+ projects?) of clones coming out build on this platform. Excited to see the future of open hardware.

brandall10 15y ago

This is addressed in the article - "Ok, then what shouldn't I open source? That's easy. Don't open source anything that represents core business value. Here are some examples of what we don't open source and why: Core GitHub Rails app (easier to sell when closed) The Jobs Sinatra app (specially crafted integration with github.com)"

dhx 15y ago

GitHub _is_ service company. The primary advantage they have over competitors is a trusted brand name. This name has been built, in part, by engaging and contributing to the open source community. If GitHub were to open source _all_ of their software, some copycat sites may appear. These sites would not have a trusted name, thousands of well known open source projects backing them up and the expertise to properly run an instance of GitHub. As long as GitHub doesn't try charging users too much to use their service, there is no reason for people to use competitors to save a few dollars a month (reliability is far more important than a few dollars here and there). Some open source projects may decide to operate their own infrastructure. However, this is highly unlikely because GitHub _as a service_ is much easier and more reliable than an independently managed instance. If GitHub can retain the open source community, they become "the hub" that everyone wants to be part of. As long as GitHub is known to support open source in a meaningful way, given the resources available, I'm sure they'd benefit from hundreds of open source projects improving upon and patching GitHub code. I think they could quite readily open source _all_ of their software.

cschep 15y ago
Certainly no one would buy the enterprise version of Github if it was free though. Just a thought.
- quadhome 15y ago
  In the same way that no one would buy RHEL?
  - alexhawket 15y ago
    If Github went in that direction, they would have to sell services to Enterprise clients to maintain/deploy the client's Github installation instead of selling the software itself.
  - audioHack 15y ago
    Complexity of self-support versus value of paid support. Something like RHEL, the support is worth it to many businesses. Something like Github... I could see it being less of a priority once it is up and running.
    - dhx 15y ago
      The costs of setting up a geographically redundant GitHub clone and continuously updating software and configuration are far in excess of the mere $200/month GitHub charges for their Platinum plan: unlimited users, unlimited public repositories and 125 private repositories. Even the Bronze plan for $25/month with 10 private repositories is exceptional value to businesses that only develop a few pieces of software. At GitHub's price points, a manager would be crazy to take on the risk, expense and effort of setting up their own clone. The obvious "but..." excuses don't even apply because: 1. GitHub offers enterprise "run GitHub from your own server room" services for companies that have greater needs for confidentiality/customisability. 2. Private organisations can take their source code and other data with them. This means that users are free to move elsewhere (regardless of whether GitHub is entirely open sourced) if GitHub suddenly decides to charge $1,000/month/user.