4 ms·

This is, perhaps, a canonical example of how management's attempt to monetize an open source project will cause sub-optimal results both in code quality and pro

This is, perhaps, a canonical example of how management's attempt to monetize an open source project will cause sub-optimal results both in code quality and profits. New features should be developed and tested in an open version, so the feedback, testing, patches and even unexpected new improvements from high skilled enthusiasts would be incorporated much more quickly than any closed team with QA (look at the Linux kernel). We have seen too many examples of "acquiring" open source projects to monetize on its user base (how I hate that idiotic MBA slang) which then became stagnant - from MySQL to Xen, you name it. I wonder what mr. Sysoev is writing these days?)

jospoortvliet 11y ago
I agree with you, but knowing a little how hard it is to stay smart about this as an open source company, I understand why it went wrong. The Open Source Way is surprisingly hard to understand and the pressure from Sales turns the focus on short term gains.
IgorPartola 11y ago
Not that I don't want me some more nginx features, but how will this work exactly? Are you suggesting these features, once developed, become closed source? Honestly, I am not sure how nginx could be profitable long term. It is so good, that you don't need paid support or whatever the Plus version offers.
- gizzlon 11y ago
  Guess it would work more like Fedora -> Redhat Enterprise Linux. You might be right about the profits, I have no idea.. The "open core" model is horrible IMO. It pits the open source version and the commercial version againts each other. What happens when someone would like to contribute features already planned for the commercial version.. ?
  - dschiptsov 11y ago
    Redhat has really clever model, btw. Once, in times of RHEL3 and 4 they have tried to maintain zillion patches against vanilla kernel to be "Enterprise Linux", you know, so you could run Oracle cheap (a hot topic in that time). Then they have realized, that it is much smarter to give the patches to the mainstream, so everyone will benefit. Fedora became a test-bed for a new technologies, to amortize the too rapid changes (systemd and other crap, you know), so they could provide stable and compatible RHEL versions for existing customers. And Redhat is a service, not the code company.
- dschiptsov 11y ago
  I would say that open source code base cannot be profitable in principle (and it should be completely open, like the Linux kernel, with all the new "hot" features development) but the services, you as a developer provide, could. Or let's say that one's knowledge and skills are profitable, not the code itself. The code should be open, so it could grow on the same pace as everything else grows, according to the real demand for features, like early FreeBSD or Linux or even MySQL grew, or even nginx before 1.0.
  - IgorPartola 11y ago
    Well, I think an OSS piece of software can be profitable if you can run it as a service. For example, WordPress (wordpress.com sells subscriptions), or Sentry (getsentry.com). Sure you can run your own, but why not pay someone to take care of that headache? However, I am looking specifically at nginx. The open version of it is too good and too complete, and by its nature it's not something you are going to run externally to your application. It's what Alan Cox (I think) described as "legacy software", meaning it's a fundamental part of your infrastructure that you expect to just sit there and work.
    - dschiptsov 11y ago
      There is not a single complain about the quality of the nginx and its place as a "core service", on the contrary, it is a rare example of careful craftsmanship (Igor's code), a gold standard, if you wish.) What I am trying to suggest is the simple idea that as long as the code become closed it cease to grow and become stagnant, but while it is open to everyone, like Linux kernel, and just grows and grows, it is not possible to monetize it, and the one possible working model is to develop new features sponsored by someone, like it is the case for the Linux kernel, or to sell your own services with open code, like so many do. It seems like the model acquire, close and sell does not work with open source projects, because when it does not grow it dies (stagnates), just according to the laws of big numbers. Or rather it changes its status to being a commercial product, which is completely different story (paid developers, support, QA, etc) to which very few people would contribute - no one wants to grow other people's wealth.

jospoortvliet 11y ago

I agree with you, but knowing a little how hard it is to stay smart about this as an open source company, I understand why it went wrong. The Open Source Way is surprisingly hard to understand and the pressure from Sales turns the focus on short term gains.

IgorPartola 11y ago

Not that I don't want me some more nginx features, but how will this work exactly? Are you suggesting these features, once developed, become closed source? Honestly, I am not sure how nginx could be profitable long term. It is so good, that you don't need paid support or whatever the Plus version offers.

gizzlon 11y ago
Guess it would work more like Fedora -> Redhat Enterprise Linux. You might be right about the profits, I have no idea.. The "open core" model is horrible IMO. It pits the open source version and the commercial version againts each other. What happens when someone would like to contribute features already planned for the commercial version.. ?
- dschiptsov 11y ago
  Redhat has really clever model, btw. Once, in times of RHEL3 and 4 they have tried to maintain zillion patches against vanilla kernel to be "Enterprise Linux", you know, so you could run Oracle cheap (a hot topic in that time). Then they have realized, that it is much smarter to give the patches to the mainstream, so everyone will benefit. Fedora became a test-bed for a new technologies, to amortize the too rapid changes (systemd and other crap, you know), so they could provide stable and compatible RHEL versions for existing customers. And Redhat is a service, not the code company.
dschiptsov 11y ago
I would say that open source code base cannot be profitable in principle (and it should be completely open, like the Linux kernel, with all the new "hot" features development) but the services, you as a developer provide, could. Or let's say that one's knowledge and skills are profitable, not the code itself. The code should be open, so it could grow on the same pace as everything else grows, according to the real demand for features, like early FreeBSD or Linux or even MySQL grew, or even nginx before 1.0.
- IgorPartola 11y ago
  Well, I think an OSS piece of software can be profitable if you can run it as a service. For example, WordPress (wordpress.com sells subscriptions), or Sentry (getsentry.com). Sure you can run your own, but why not pay someone to take care of that headache? However, I am looking specifically at nginx. The open version of it is too good and too complete, and by its nature it's not something you are going to run externally to your application. It's what Alan Cox (I think) described as "legacy software", meaning it's a fundamental part of your infrastructure that you expect to just sit there and work.
  - dschiptsov 11y ago
    There is not a single complain about the quality of the nginx and its place as a "core service", on the contrary, it is a rare example of careful craftsmanship (Igor's code), a gold standard, if you wish.) What I am trying to suggest is the simple idea that as long as the code become closed it cease to grow and become stagnant, but while it is open to everyone, like Linux kernel, and just grows and grows, it is not possible to monetize it, and the one possible working model is to develop new features sponsored by someone, like it is the case for the Linux kernel, or to sell your own services with open code, like so many do. It seems like the model acquire, close and sell does not work with open source projects, because when it does not grow it dies (stagnates), just according to the laws of big numbers. Or rather it changes its status to being a commercial product, which is completely different story (paid developers, support, QA, etc) to which very few people would contribute - no one wants to grow other people's wealth.