Posted by
nenad@amodaj.com on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Micro-Manager-at-the-ASCB-meeting-tp1627182p1632824.html
I don't think that it makes any difference how a software package is
funded, whether it
is free, or not, or whether is Open Source or not. The only thing that
matters is whether
it is useful and flexible enough. Regardless of whether something is given
away for free,
if it doesn't work well, no one will use it. The emergence of micro-manager
as a free and
Open Source application for microscopy was inevitable, because of the
problematic
situation with currently available commercial packages. Companies, quite
understandably,
can't admit that their software is overpriced, too fragmented (amazing
variety of
mutually incompatible applications) and in general pretty limited and
inflexible. My own
feeling is that the current, highly fragmented state of available
commercial packages
presents an obstacle to the imaging community - at least in the Life
Sciences.
Software application backed by a commercial company, in terms of long term
sustainability, presents the same risk to the user as the Open Source
software, backed by
the informal community, NIH funds, or what have you. Companies get bought
and sold,
marketing plans change, and overnight any commercial application can easily
become
obsolete. I would argue that Open Source presents lower risk for users,
both commercial
and academic, because in case the original entity folds, some other one
will pick it up.
Again, the only criterion is whether the software is useful or not. If it
is useful and
works well for people it inherently has a value, even if it currently sells
for $0.
Valuable software applications have amazing staying power over the long
run, one way or
another, regardless of the business model.
All of the above, of course, is my personal sentiment. I would also add
that vendors and
developers, from both Commercial and Open Source communities, should not
underestimate
the wisdom of the user community and lecture them on what is better for
them. Time will
show. The fact that the number of micro-manager users is constantly growing
each month is
convincing enough to me that something important is happening and that Open
Source model
of developing and distributing software is going to stay in the microscopy
market.
Nenad
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Kevin Ryan
[hidden email]
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:50:35 -0500
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: A commercial response - RE: Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting
A perceived conflict between Open Source/free software and commercial
products has been
around for quite a long time.
Twenty years ago when I started developing imaging software I had an NIH
customer ask â
Why canât you _give_ your software away like NIH Image?!?â (I told
him I would
gladly do so when the Federal government started paying my salary.) Certain
people in the
commercial side of things at the time were quite upset that the government
was supporting
someone to compete with us.
As it turned out, however, some of our best customers were previous users
of these
freeware packages. Best, as they had the experience with imaging software
to recognize
what it could and couldnât do, and the knowledge to move up to a
commercial package
with wider/faster/more capabilities once they hit the freeware limits. They
had the
education to know what they wanted.
Open Source software/hardware has the advantage of being âfreeâ, but
that freedom may
cost a considerable investment in people; the grad student who maintains
it, the
technician who knows what wire does what, the involvement in keeping up
with a wide group
of contributors who are fixing bugs and adding capabilities. Itâs a real
tradeoff
between dollars spent and the time invested to use/maintain it. I have yet
to see a free
software product whose documentation matches the average level of
commercial software.
And if the support community doesnât pass a certain critical level, like
Linux or the
Apache web server, having a principal developer move on may mean the end of
that package.
Open Source/free software also tends to have a more limited feature set, as
it tends to
be driven by the developers interests rather than market pressure and
dollars.
Commercial software may not do exactly what you want; itâs a truism in
commercial
development that 10% of the customers require 90% of the development time,
and open
software may represent the clearest way to get some experiment specific
item functioning.
But for the other 90% of the features and customers, you get code developed
over many
years, QA tested before release, and used by a _lot_ of other people. There
are often
more/broader features in the commercial products, due to the larger number
of customers
requesting them and more man-years in development. We have something on the
order of
50,000+ customers over the years between the various packages for our
company alone, and
if a issue or new technique pops up we hear about it and have a great deal
of motivation
to work on it. Many of the commercial products themselves have interfaces
for users to
add new capabilities, just as with the open software.
So both free and commercial software have their niche â open/free
software for people
with more time than money, or needs simply not addressed by current
commercial products,
or who enjoy developing their own tools; commercial software for a wider
range of people
using more established techniques, or who donât want to invest or even
have the human
resources for a less supported product.
I do have my concerns about sponsored âfreeâ software â Micro-Manager
(and NIH
Image/ImageJ before it) are supported by NIH grants instead of customers or
donated
developer time. They arenât developed with users donated time like
Linux/Apache. What
happens to sponsored software users if the grants run out? Will the support
be there over
the long haul? On the other hand, what effect on the commercial market and
its products
does government sponsored software have, other than reducing commercial
opportunity and
investment? But thatâs really a discussion between commercial interests
and sponsoring
agencies, rather than individual products and projects.
Kevin Ryan
Senior Project Manager
Media Cybernetics, Inc.
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:
[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of
Nico Stuurman
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 7:11 PM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Micro-Manager at the ASCB meeting
If you are attending the upcoming ASCB meeting in San Francisco, December
13-17
(
http://www.ascb.org/meetings/), please come see us in booth 2009 in the
Exhibition
space.
Micro-Manager (
http://micro-manager.org <
http://micro-manager.org/> ) is
Open Source
software for microscope image acquisition. â¦.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange