Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Open-source companies chase steady money

Filed under
OSS

When entrepreneur Byron Sebastian started his company last year, he set his sights on the business software industry's ultimate cash cow: maintenance contracts.

Rather than charge large up-front fees for a product, his company, SourceLabs, will try to siphon off some of the millions of dollars corporate customers earmark for support. Like a growing number of start-ups, Sebastian's weapon of choice is open source.

The spread of open-source software, which generally is freely available, allows smaller companies to compete for maintenance money that until now has been locked up with incumbent software vendors, he said.

"Open source creates a competitive market for support and maintenance contracts," Sebastian said. "For the first time, you can build a successful business by being great at that, rather than just being mediocre."

Many industry veterans argue that open source is accelerating a shift that has been going on in the software industry for some time: Rather than hinge their business on big-ticket license contracts, software providers increasingly rely on recurring maintenance revenue.

And because most open-source tools don't have license fees attached to them, commercial open-source companies are often forced to build their businesses around services revenue, in the form of support, up-front installation or training.

With this model, purchasing software is more like committing to a yearlong cell phone contract--and less like buying a car with a large cash outlay and making regular payments later.

Although upstart open-source companies are relatively small and untested, the services-led business model reflects how more value is being attached to follow-on services than the actual the software, analysts and industry executives say. In fact, this week, industry executives at the Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco will consider the impact of open-source products on how software is acquired.

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Feral Interactive Ports Life Is Strange to Linux and Mac, Episode 1 Is Now Free

Feral Interactive has recently announced that they have managed to successfully port the popular, award-winning Life Is Strange game to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Read more

Introduction to Modularity

Modularity is an exciting, new initiative aimed at resolving the issue of diverging (and occasionally conflicting) lifecycles of different “components” within Fedora. A great example of a diverging and conflicting lifecycle is the Ruby on Rails (RoR) lifecycle, whereby Fedora stipulates that itself can only have one version of RoR at any point in time – but that doesn’t mean Fedora’s version of RoR won’t conflict with another version of RoR used in an application. Therefore, we want to avoid having “components”, like RoR, conflict with other existing components within Fedora. Read more

Our First Look at Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon

Now that I’ve had about a week to play around in Mint 18, I find a lot to like and have no major complaints. While Cinnamon probably isn’t destined to become my desktop of choice, I don’t dislike it and find it, hands down, the best of the GNOME based desktops I’ve tried so far. Anybody looking for a powerful, all purpose distro that’s designed to work smoothly and which can be mastered with ease would be hard pressed to find anything better. Read more

The subtle art of the Desktop

The history of the Gnome and KDE desktops go a long way back and their competition, for the lack of a better term, is almost as famous in some circles as the religious divide between Emacs and Vi. But is that competition stil relevant in 2016? Are there notable differences between Gnome and KDE that would position each other on a specific segment of users? Having both desktops running on my systems (workstation + laptop) but using really only one of them at all times, I wanted to find out by myself. My workstation and laptop both run ArchLinux, which means I tend to run the latest stable versions of pretty much any desktop software. I will thus be considering the latest stable versions from Gnome and KDE in this post. Historically, the two environments stem from different technical platforms: Gnome relies on the GTK framework while KDE, or more exactly the Plasma desktop environment, relies on Qt. For a long time, that is until well into the development of the Gnome 3.x platform, the major difference was not just technical, it was one of style and experience. KDE used to offer a desktop experience that was built along the lines of Windows, with a start center on the bottom left, a customizable side bar, and desktop widgets. Gnome had its two bars on the top and bottom of the screen, and was seemingly used as the basis for the first design of Mac OS X, with the top bar offering features that were later found in the Apple operating system. Read more