The past

The assembly line was the key innovation of the auto industry, that famous invention of Henry Ford. By creating stations where each person did one thing, and moving the products past the people, it was possible to crank out thousands and then millions of mostly identical cars. As robotics came along, it was possible to remove people and reduce payroll. As globalization grew, it was possible to find places where the people you did need to employ cost less.

Who did this system benefit? For a while, it benefited auto workers, once the unions were in place to provide basic protections that limited repetitive stress injuries and guaranteed living wages. It definitely benefited owners of the car companies, at least the ones that survived to be bought by one of the big 3. It benefited the shareholders of the big 3, which for a time included in some small part much of the American middle class, along with many retirement funds more recently. And it brought cars and a whole car culture to several generations of Americans.

But there are many, many costs we’ve paid as a society for this. Many American cities had streetcar or rail systems in the 1920s and 1930s that were dismantled with the rise of the automobile. While some argue that streetcars were slow and inefficient compared to cars, many point to GM buying up the streetcar systems and dismantling them. And I have yet to see any accounting for the mass subsidization of the car system we’ve made over the years, the cost of paving the millions of miles of roads and parking lots, the gas distribution networks, or health issues related to air pollution. That’s not to mention the opportunity cost of dedicating all that land to our cars.

The number of people benefiting from the car companies is quickly declining through off-shoring and automation. Worse, for decades, the Big 3 have been buying up competitors and burying innovation. Rather than compete with its more lucrative mainstream cars, GM killed its early electric car program. Big car companies need to do a lot to maintain their monopoly. Big unions have arisen to provide some protection for the labor these companies needed. Big oil is perhaps the biggest benefiter of the auto industry, as it’s been for decades. But the effect of all of this bigness is funneling dollars from the mass middle-class to a tiny group of owners of these companies.

The present

The car companies are saying that if you account for all the parts suppliers and other companies that depend on the big 3 for revenue, they’re responsible for nearly 10% of our economy. But there’s some false logic here. First of all, if the big 3 go under, we’re not going to stop driving. It won’t take down the entire industry–we do love our cars. What it will do is create a big vacuum in the marketplace that will open it up to hundreds of innovative startups, giving them a much bigger opportunity to succeed.

If the big car companies fail, there will be a lot of talented people who know how to make cars looking for work, and many of them probably have some brilliant ideas to make them better. I think we’d see a renaissance in the car industry, with many companies going out of business but a lot more starting up to take their place. The old car industry has long been complacent, relying on heavy marketing to make their outdated business model keep running. And it worked, for a surprisingly long time.

The problem is, the assembly line is obsolete. It appeared during a period when talent was scarce, and raw materials plentiful. So big car companies got big by doing what they could to produce more with less people. Much of our business world has the idea that you make more money by replacing jobs that take skill with jobs that do not. Make the process smart, and make it so you can put a trained monkey (or robot) in a position so you can reduce your cost and make more money.

Unions stand in the way of this, protecting workers’ pay while their jobs become ever less. So these workers, their pensions, and their health-care benefits become a huge cost for the American car companies, compared to foreign companies that do not need to pay for these costs. Yet ironically, by paying decent wages, these companies also create people who have money to buy their products.

Here’s the real reason we’re in a recession and facing even worse: our entire business system that has been built on maximizing profits has worked so effectively in funneling capital to the wealthiest and away from our middle class, that the vast numbers of Americans can no longer afford to make the purchases that keep our economy running. We’re quickly becoming share-croppers in a neo-feudalistic world, slaves to our wages that effectively dwindle against rising health-care costs, mortgages that are 10 times as much as our parents, and fuel costs that have only diminished because nobody can afford to buy anything.

Who needs a bailout?

Now, I’m not suggesting we do nothing. If the big auto companies go out of business, there will be a lot of people out of work, with no safety net to keep them afloat. We pride ourselves on being a place where anybody can start up a business and potentially do really well–but the reality is, this is really hard to do in an environment where your potential customers aren’t buying anything.

I do think we need a bailout. I just think that rescuing the car companies is not who to bail out. We need to soften the landing of the hundreds of thousands of people who may find themselves suddenly out of work, and we need to figure out how to get capital in the hands of new entrepreneurs who can put these people back to work. The car companies have proven they’re not the ones with any sort of vision for the future, so they need to die now.

Right now, the barriers to creating a new business are steep. Very few people understand everything that’s involved in starting up a business, but most understand that the stakes are high if you have no other source of income. Many, if not most, successful businesses are started by people who have saved up a good amount of seed capital, or have spouses with a stable income, or by those who have done it before and have connections. Without money or connections, it’s extremely difficult to start a business.

I think we need a national program to help match engineers with business people and ideas, and provide seed money to get them launched.

There’s a few nascent events in Seattle along these lines: 6-hour startups, startup weekends, and the like put smart people in the same room and let them see if they can develop some sort of web site with business potential. We need this kind of thing expanded to include more than just software people, and also provide some financial backing to see if they can get running.

This is basically the role of venture capital, but the biggest problem with venture funds is that their timelines are too short–they expect a profitable exit event within a few years, and won’t necessarily fund something that isn’t designed to make a huge profit in a short amount of time.

Some of the work of the Small Business Administration and the Small Business Development Centers is admirable in this area–the problem is, not enough people know about these programs, and far too few engage with them. I think a large part of this is fear of losing health-care benefits, retirement plans, and other benefits that large companies provide at a huge advantage to smaller companies.

America has a huge mythos built on top of the entrepreneur, but very few people who actually become entrepreneurs. We would do far better to provide a social safety net for people out trying to start new ventures, making sure they have healthcare and other basic needs covered, along with the tools they need to figure out how to grow and thrive, than to bail out the decadent dinosaurs.

The Future

As bleak as the current financial system and business climate appears to be, there’s a ton of opportunity for real change. But we need to re-align our business value system to make this happen. Here are three specific mental adjustments the business world needs to make.

First of all, we need to recognize that people are our most valuable asset. Where businesses used to do everything possible to make people interchangeable cogs in a vast machine, to succeed in the future they’ll need to use perhaps our biggest untapped resource: our brainpower. To succeed, a business needs to find smart people who haven’t had their sense of initiative crushed by working in large businesses, and give them tools and encouragement to solve real problems. Rather than the cynical marketing to the lowest common denominator and appealing to “Joe Sixpack” as the average American, we need to recognize the genius in our neighbors and ourselves. We can be so much more.

Secondly, we must recognize that we are in a dire position, and need to work together to survive. It’s human nature to adopt an “us versus them” mentality. We’ve always separated people into our friends and our enemies. Nothing unites a people like a shared enemy. For a brief time, 9/11 brought Americans, and much of the world, together in shared suffering. In the large businesses of the world, success is measured by your sales compared to your competition. In the Cold War, nearly the entire planet was divided into the Free World versus the Communist world. But during all of this, we’ve been dumping waste into all the natural systems that support our very lives. We’ve been increasing the temperature of the planet by pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, causing galloping glaciers in Greenland and drowning cities. We’ve been poisoning our rivers and streams. We’ve been decimating entire fisheries at alarming rates, killing the great sources of our food. We’ve created rivers of garbage floating around in the middle of the oceans. And we’ve drawn down every natural resource available to us as if there was no tomorrow — soil levels, water levels, oil levels, all being consumed to give us an unreasonable standard of living. If we don’t start addressing these problems quickly, we won’t have a tomorrow.

We need to focus our energy on solving these problems, because they threaten our very existence. Our human enemies are mainly just the people who are unlucky enough to be faced with these problems first. It’s time to set aside our differences and get to work creating a place where our grandchildren can live.

Finally, we need to harness all the efficiency and productivity that technology provides, and focus that on solving real problems. Computers can automate many menial tasks. Large businesses have used technology to cut costs. In most cases, “costs” equals payroll–you save money by cutting jobs. But if our talent is our most valuable asset, it makes no sense to get rid of them. Instead, we need to take those assets and put them more directly to work on projects they’re best suited to handle.

The rise of agriculture meant that more people did not have to spend their lives finding sustenance–people who farmed created more food than they consumed, which led to the rise of towns. Industrialization further centralized our economy into big cities, and centralized wealth into the hands of a few. Now the Internet and open source is changing everything, providing a decentralized model that completely levels the playing field–individuals with no prior connections can become as influential as centuries-old institutions. We no longer need to be dependent on big economics, big corporations, big publishing houses–we now have the tools to build small local economies. Innovation is done by individuals. Small companies with smart people can displace the old dinosaurs. We need to teach people to be smart, and encourage innovation–not teach them to be dumb, staying mute in the face of rigid hierarchies of corporations.

Let the dinosaurs die, and let’s get on with solving our real problems.

First of all, the Mac Break Weekly show apparently spends some time bashing the open source community, calling out Drupal, and how difficult it is to solve “simple” problems like uploading images for blog posts. In practically the same breath, the hosts claim that the open source community never has any innovation behind it. Irony drips:

• In the world of content management systems (CMSs), most of the innovation starts in open source projects these days, and Drupal is at the cutting edge of this with its powerful system of taxonomies, and hundreds of add-ons freely available.
• I can think of a grand total of 2 proprietary CMSs that have anywhere near as widespread use as most of the open source CMS systems. One has turned open source itself: Movable Type. The other is Sharepoint, and it’s widespread because Microsoft has shipped it out on lots of its server products.
• Complain about usability all you want, but name a proprietary product as powerful as Drupal, that’s easier to install, administer, and configure.
• The TWIT.tv site itself is running on Drupal.

So let’s talk a little about innovation. While Photoshop may still dominate the world of graphic design, but the lines aren’t so clear when it comes to animation. The Blender project recently released its second short animated film, Big Buck Bunny. While you might argue about the strength of its story, you cannot deny that the technical effects are as stunning as any major animated film coming out from the big studios. And it was created by 7 people in 9 months, using open source software. Even the big studios like Pixar, Dreamworks, and Industrial Light and Magic rely on open source software to deliver their magic, such as CinePaint, POVray, and several others.

On the subject of innovation, KDE4 is breaking new ground and stirring up controversy, laying a bedrock that promises the ability to do things beyond the standard “Desktop” paradigm that was invented over 30 years ago and we’ve all used ever since. Meanwhile, the GNOME team is working on creative ways to embed web applications into your desktop.

But the real innovations of the open source community are all a few layers deeper in the application stack, all the plumbing that powers the Internet. Microsoft itself borrowed its early networking stack from BSD, one of the earliest open source operating systems. Domain Name Service (DNS) and email were first implemented on the Internet using open source software (BIND and Sendmail).

The open source community tends to snicker whenever Apple claims to be innovative. Its core “innovations” were all invented somewhere else:

• The Mac Desktop interface borrowed heavily from Xerox PARC labs
• OS X uses BSD under the hood
• “Spaces” were in use in Unix systems for a decade before they arrived on the Mac
• The “Time Machine” functionality in Leopard is standard in many source code management tools

To its credit, Apple polishes these features better than anybody else, making them easier to find and use by normal people. But many, if not most of its innovations come from somebody else.

Read the previous post for more discussion about Linux support.

Dann and Linc had a quite spirited debate about the merits of having a company hire low-end tech support with scripts (Dann) versus having an experienced, savvy, tech professional able to really solve the user’s problem (Linc). Dann’s point was that it can easily be more cost-effective for both the support company and the end user to go straight to reinstalling a system if rebooting doesn’t solve the user’s problem, while Linc seemed to think a savvy tech person could get to the root of the issue much quicker, and brought up the point that there’s a cost to the frustration of users being put through the whole front-line support nightmare.

I’d suggest the situation is even more complex than that, but it also differs greatly between the open source projects and proprietary operating systems. First, let me make a bold statement:

Linux support is far better than Windows or Mac.

But it also has a completely different set of rules. Learn those rules, and you’ll be able to solve your problems more satisfactorily than it’s possible to do in the proprietary world. Let’s talk about these differences, looking specifically at a who, where, what, and how long.

Who can help with your problem?

Let’s take a look at who can help with your problem:

The bottom line here is that while you probably know fewer people personally who can help you with Linux, there are more options for commercial support, and you can reach people who can do more to solve your problem for free, than you can with either Mac or Windows.

The fundamental reason for this is that anybody can read the raw source code of any open source product out there, and with enough skill and talent, can solve your problem without needing to pay anybody for the right to do so. In the proprietary world, only one company can help beyond a certain point: for Windows problems, that’s Microsoft. For problems in an application, it’s the application developer.

So the next question is:

Where can you get help?
Again, let’s compare the options:

The main point of the table above is that in the proprietary world, the harder your problem is to solve, the fewer people can help you solve it. You quickly get down to one place to go, and if it’s in the operating system, it might be expensive or not possible to fix. In the open source world, it’s nearly the opposite case–it can be harder to find the simple quick answer to your question, but the harder and deeper your problem, the more places you can go to get help.

Where do you look for help first? This is the single stumbling block for most otherwise tech-savvy users new to Linux. To learn Windows or Mac you can take a class, talk to neighbors and friends, and find lots of very low-end help that way. For Linux, unless you’re friends with some hard-core geeks, you need to go online to find help. Once you’re there, it really depends on where your problem lies.

For just figuring out how to use a system, go to the forums for your distribution. The Ubuntu forums are a great place to ask general questions. Be specific about what you’re trying to do and you’re more likely to get help. Remember that this level of support is free, and people helping you are volunteering their time and knowledge. While you’re there, see if you can answer somebody else’s question–the more help you give, the more you’ll get in return.

The other fantastic place to go for help, especially for quick questions, is IRC. IRC is a system that provides chat rooms and instant messaging. Most open source projects with any community behind them have a chat room on irc.freenode.net. Install an IRC program like Chatzilla, Konversation, Pidgin, or any number of others, connect to irc.freenode.net, pick a nickname to use, and join the channel for the program or distribution you’re having trouble with. Ask your question nicely, and if you don’t get a response immediately, keep your chat program open for a few hours–not everybody is watching the channel every minute.

What kinds of problems can you solve?
Let’s look at the same types of problems as before, and look at the resolutions:

What’s the key thing in this section? Addressing actual problems is within your control, when you’re working with open source. In the proprietary world, you’re entirely at the mercy of a single software vendor. If your problem is in the interaction between two different applications, you’re really stuck — there’s nothing you can do.

But in the open source world, there’s always something you can do. You can hire anybody with the skills to solve your problem, and fix it in the software itself. You don’t need any blessing from any single software vendor.

Open formats are perhaps more valuable than open source software, for most businesses. Because this is such a compelling advantage of open source software, many proprietary programs are beginning to open up their formats to allow other software to read them–their customers are demanding it.

How long will it take to solve your problem?
I’m not going to bother with a table for this one. The answer is nearly always “too long,” regardless of the operating system.

Actually, that’s not quite always the case–it depends on whether somebody has already solved the problem or not, as well as whether the solution is a fix or a workaround.

Many, many problems in Windows are not really fixes, they’re just workarounds. The only real “fix” for a virus-infected machine is the workaround of reinstalling your operating system. The only fix for lots of other minor issues that cause your system to slow down over time is to reboot. These are not fixes, they’re workarounds.

Real fixes take a lot longer, and need acknowledgment that the problem is real. Workarounds are band aids to get you through until there’s a real fix. And there are some real differences between the entire approaches of each operating system around these fixes.

Windows is chock-full of workarounds. Because Microsoft has gone to great lengths to maintain backwards compatibility of just about everything that’s been released for Windows since Windows 95, it’s full of workarounds to keep the old behavior. Rather than fixing behavior that might really be undesirable, they’ve had to patch it with workarounds because too many existing applications turned out to depend on that bad behavior. That, fundamentally, is why Windows is so big, bloated, slow, and painful to work with.

Apple suffers a different problem: changing their closed libraries too quickly for external developers to keep up. Each release, they break lots of things, and don’t always tell 3rd party developers ahead of time. This means the number of third party developers of Apple software is shrinking–they’ve managed to alienate quite a few. So their polish and high quality comes at the price of having a healthy thriving developer community outside the walls of Apple. There’s little transparency in this process, so developers outside Apple are always playing catch-up, and having to work around these changes in behavior.

Linux has its share of problems, too. Linux does not attempt to maintain “binary” compatibility between versions, though it does its best to maintain compatibility in source code. There is endless debate about the “correct” way to fix a problem, and competition between fixes. The challenge of this is that it can be hard for application developers to keep up, especially if they want to keep their source code closed and only ship software in binary form.

But the process is completely, utterly transparent. Anybody can see the progress on any fixes to any part of the system, and can jump in with their own solution at any time. It’s a true meritocracy, with those doing the actual work and providing the best solutions winning out over time.

The whole open source ecosystem is nimble enough to provide real fixes to technical problems, rather than just simple workarounds. If the source of the problem is design, it can take a long time to get the right design in place and resolve all the issues that changing the design causes in other applications. But when a bug gets fixed, it’s really fixed and usually doesn’t appear again.

I posted my results, and confusion, to the Dspam mailing list. The original developer of this software (which has thousands of users), Jonathan Zdziarski, responded that that did not sound right. He asked if he could log into my server and see what was wrong.

I created a test account for him, and logged in to the same screen so I could watch what he was doing. As I watched, he put debugging messages into his code, ran several tests, and within 10 minutes had identified the problem: the 19-digit number he put into the database (MySQL) was different than the 19-digit number he got out. It was a storage error in somebody else’s software causing the problem, a rounding error. He filed a bug in MySQL, and it was fixed within a month or two. But he also had a workaround for me: change the data type to a set of characters instead of an integer. Problem solved.

• Before asking anybody, do your homework. Use Google, read the project FAQ, make some attempt to learn the basics without pestering people with questions they’ve already answered hundreds of times. Nine times out of ten, your problem has already been encountered and somebody has figured out a workaround.
• Limit the scope of your question to the fundamental problem. Get to the point. I’m obviously guilty of being tremendously long-winded at times, but unless your question is right at the top and asked directly, you’ll probably get ignored. Developers are busy, they don’t want to read a novel, but they’re usually happy to answer a question.
• Provide supporting details after asking your question. Many programs will create a log with lots of information that can help somebody diagnose your problem. Find what looks relevant in the logs. Specify what version of operating system, distribution, application, etc. Specify what you were trying to do, what you expected, and what really happened. But provide this stuff after asking your initial question–people aren’t going to wade through a long email to find your question.
• Contribute something. The easiest way you can contribute is by answering other people’s questions. The whole thing works because people help each other, and this help goes both ways. If you always ask questions and never answer anybody else’s, or provide any other sort of contribution, you’ll eventually start getting ignored.
• Always, always, be positive, respectful, and polite when asking your questions. Developers have a lot invested in their project, and insulting it won’t gain you any favors. Developers are under no obligation to help you either–you haven’t paid for it. Common courtesy is valuable. Complements are welcome.
• Be patient. Sometimes the person who has the answer to your question is away from the computer. Usually you’ll get your problem solved quicker than you would calling some tech support line, but there are times it’s going to take a while. If you don’t get any response in a reasonable period of time (judged by how active the list or forum is, reasonable could be a couple hours or a couple days), there are several likely reasons: You haven’t been specific enough in your question; you’re in the wrong forum (e.g. users when it’s a developer question); nobody else is trying to do what you’re doing (in which case you may need to hire someone with the right skills); the project is dead (it happens sometimes–find another one); or the developers are swamped (give them more time, or come up with a new scenario that sheds light on your problem in a different way).

That list describes how we get open source support at Freelock. Aside from a couple unsupported hardware devices, or issues with proprietary programs, we have yet to get stumped, in over 6 years of extremely heavy Linux and open source use. We’ve never paid a dime for this support, though we have provided help to many others in return.

Ten fantastic keyboard shortcuts in OpenOffice.org

This sounds quite similar to the challenges a small business faces. “The E-Myth Revisited,” by Michael Gerber, is essential reading for anyone wanting to start a small business, and some of the same ideas apply to building a successful open source project.

Basically, Gerber says you need to have 3 personalities in your business:

• The entrepreneur, the person with the vision to drive the business/project forward, always a step ahead working on what’s next
• The manager, somebody to make sure all the work gets done on schedule, delivered on time, and that everybody is working in the same direction with the same priorities
• The technician, who actually does the work

And small businesses, like open source projects, are almost always started by technicians, people who just know they can do a better job than anybody else, so they set out to do it themselves. The reason why so many businesses fail is because the founders spend all their time building something without setting enough overall direction or managing their cash flow. Sound familiar?

The key to creating both a successful business and an open source project is balancing out these 3 personalities and making sure all are represented to an appropriate degree.