Open Source will never get out of stock

It is like running out of light or wind. Software can be copied as many times as needed. Why haven't Microsoft and Apple understood this yet?

Some random examples of Windows 7 beeing out of stock
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49303067,00.htm
http://www.digi.no/827047/windows-7-utsolgt-i-sverige

How can software be sold out? The only commodity invlolved is the software to be copied. To produce a physical copy a USB drive or recordable CD or DVD must be used in the process. But basically software can be copied between computers over the network. The required production equipment is computers, electric power and a network. These resources are abundant in the enterprise and in the average european/american home.

It seems like it is mostly pirates and the Open Source movement that have understood this distribution model. Commercial vendors seems to try to ignore or deny it. That is too bad, because they could profit from the extremely low distribution costs.

• Pirates exploits the low distribution costs to distribute goods illegally
  
• Open Source have relied on this distribution model for a long time. This has resulted in a very broad open source software usage, and distribution costs is approximately zero.

While Open Source and pirated digitial goods has very different usage profiles, they share the common properties of extremely effective and almost non-existing distribution costs. Open Source is mainly used by software developers, and consumers download software and digital media content for free.

In the last couple of years a new distribution patterns has gained foothold, beyond the most simple forms: SaaS. SaaS leverages software that can be used as-is instantly. Since there is no significant download and installation, the costs/effort required from the end user is even lower than with Open Source. For example the latest release of Ubuntu aims to provide a OS as a service by leveraging Amazon EC2 compatible images.

Software vendors, and other digital content providers, should free themselves from physical medias. Soon physical medias will be of interest of the entusiast. The rest of us will prefer instant gratification over the physical media.

Last weekend I was in a record shop where they of course played some music. I was very surprised when I saw the PC with Spotify was used instead of a CD player. That says it all about the state of physical distribution of digital goods.

Monocultures are unhealthy - even in software

Making the assumption that every project should be based on the same software stack, is just another variation over Silver Bullet.

In the software world the temptation to default to an architeture that has worked before is unhealthy. The result is almost always a constant struggle for the project to overcome limitations and find workarounds for architetural monstrosities.

Monocultures fosters very little learning in the organisation and leads to forcing inappropiate solutions to problems. According to epidemology theories monocultures is very vulnerable and is unable to evolve to tackle changing environment. Thinking of epidemology naturally leads to thinking about security issues as well. Monocultures is only able to resist specific types of threats, and given that the threats is certainly evolving at a blazing speed there is a obvious need to have variation.

In the longer term Monoculture will hinder innovation, and this can disastrous for an organization whose business model is e.g. developing and selling software.

But of course not all variations will be good, and should be dismissed. When experimenting with a technology new to the organization or a given project, do it in the small before going full scale. The opposite of genetical monoculture is diversity. Healthy software architecture in an organisation is probably best grown in an evolutionary way, allowing varations, promote the things that work well (but not restrict to only that). More important: things that do not work well must die.

All systems should be architected with the "right set" of technologies for the problem it is suppose to solve. One should start with what you know for sure, and make as few assumptions about the future as possible. The Cantara Software foundation has a wiki discussing these issues among other things, and I will try to post more in this topic there.

Yesterday I came across a blog post in Cutter Consortium, about uncertainty in a leadership perspective. This applies to software architects too. This should be in the architect's mind when evolving the software arcitecture for the organization.