Slashdot Mirror

I've written several white papers and op-eds about how this problem has affected various companies and government entities. Sadly, it never seems to go away.

If you don't like what you see out there, or you don't know any better, you can just write your own. I came up with Lampshade, but open-source software definitely fosters the mentality that you shouldn't necessarily just use what other people provide, when you're able to contribute something yourself. Of course, once you've written it, you want someone to use it.

http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/news/restas sured.pdf

Here's what I think of open source, at least from a technical perspective.

From a legal perspective, there are 58 OSI-approved "open source" licenses last I checked, which together constitute at least 58 different definitions. There's no consensus on what it really means. Personally, I feel that if I can read the code, the code is open source. All the other factors are extraneous.

However, one would think that in the spirit of openness, the open source community would welcome whatever contributions it gets, no matter how they're licensed. Sadly, that's rarely the case. I actually had someone threaten me with trademark infringement on the term "open source," when we released the Lampshade PHP framework under a dual license of our own. Of course, that person didn't own the trademark, becaues there is no trademark on the generic term, but whoever it was felt justified in threatening me anyway.

If the open source community wants respect, it should be willing to treat people who contribute with respect, too. Scaring off contributors is not the way to go.

Here's what I think of open source, at least from a technical perspective.

From a legal perspective, there are 58 OSI-approved "open source" licenses last I checked, which together constitute at least 58 different definitions. There's no consensus on what it really means. Personally, I feel that if I can read the code, the code is open source. All the other factors are extraneous.

However, one would think that in the spirit of openness, the open source community would welcome whatever contributions it gets, no matter how they're licensed. Sadly, that's rarely the case. I actually had someone threaten me with trademark infringement on the term "open source," when we released the Lampshade PHP framework under a dual license of our own. Of course, that person didn't own the trademark, becaues there is no trademark on the generic term, but whoever it was felt justified in threatening me anyway.

If the open source community wants respect, it should be willing to treat people who contribute with respect, too. Scaring off contributors is not the way to go.

Here's what I think of open source, at least from a technical perspective.

From a legal perspective, there are 58 OSI-approved "open source" licenses last I checked, which together constitute at least 58 different definitions. There's no consensus on what it really means. Personally, I feel that if I can read the code, the code is open source. All the other factors are extraneous.

However, one would think that in the spirit of openness, the open source community would welcome whatever contributions it gets, no matter how they're licensed. Sadly, that's rarely the case. I actually had someone threaten me with trademark infringement on the term "open source," when we released the Lampshade PHP framework under a dual license of our own. Of course, that person didn't own the trademark, becaues there is no trademark on the generic term, but whoever it was felt justified in threatening me anyway.

If the open source community wants respect, it should be willing to treat people who contribute with respect, too. Scaring off contributors is not the way to go.

I contacted Andi and Zeev two years ago about the possibility of a PHP framework geared toward business use. The response I received at the time said that it was an interesting idea-yet one that Zend still didn't find interesting enough to pursue. I followed up with them throughout 2004 and 2005, and was constantly given the runaround by various Zend employees. I submitted a talk idea earlier this year for the Zend conference on my PHP framework, and was rejected. (I wonder why.) At a previous conference, one Zend rep told me, "we're a difficult company to work with. You don't wan't to work with us."

Now, Zend wants everyone to work with them. It's too little, too late, I'm afraid.

I'm going to push Think's Lampshade non-OO PHP framework as hard as I can. Contrary to Zend's claims, it is simple, possibly the simplest one out there, and it isn't restricted to one particular industry. (If it were, I'm not sure how educational loan officers, medical researchers and T-Shirt distributors could all be using it at once.) In the meantime, we'll see if Zend's vaporware ever materializes.

I've been thinking of getting into this market, given that everyone seems to hate all of the incumbents. I created a portal system for use at Harvard, but the administatraion there did all they could to shut it down, even though students seemed to like it.

If anyone has any ideas for how I can convert these 10,000 lines of code into something that a school might actually want to buy, let me know! I have not been able to figure it out so far, though given the competition, you'd think it wouldn't be that hard...

For anyone who's interested...

http://www.aarong.thinkcomputer.com/essays/index.h tml?id=6

PHP is probably the easiest way to go in my opinion; Lampshade gives it some structure. No objects, just very, very fast and consistent.

So, all that research... and it never occured to you to contact the vendor?

Pot meet kettle ?

Rather, the rush, appeared to be in publishing a PDF and linking it on this forum.

Unfortunately, this is not true.

I'm surprised that nobody took the time to browse around the website where the pdf is. If you go to the front page of Think Computer Corp., you find a link to a press release telling that the flaws have been fixed.

Obviously the guy didn't publish the pdf before ensuring that all was well.

I'm surprised that nobody took the time to browse around the website where the pdf is. If you go to the front page of Think Computer Corp., you find a link to a press release telling that the flaws have been fixed.

Obviously the guy didn't publish the pdf before ensuring that all was well.