Slashdot Mirror
What is Open Source?
s390 writes "The Inquirer is running an article by Olliance about "What is Open Source?" It appears to be the first of a two-part series for managers about how to engage with the open source community. The writers seem to know their material. Are they on target or have they missed something important? Do PHBs really need to read this sort of introduction to get comfortable with the idea of using Linux and other open source software?"
Awesome. A life saver. Heck, it's even good!
everyone seems to think just because something is Open Source it is default GPL'ed.
Antitrust kind of fell into this trap (worst computer movie ever!).
they should ask SCO ?
"May The Source Be With You..."
Enough said. theRegister: RTFM!! Must be a slow news day.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
It's like the saying goes; when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like it needs a pounding. Nobody ever got fired buying Microsoft, whereas Open Source seems like a gamble... even moreso now with the bogus SCO lawsuit. Calmly and rationally explaining to the people that make the procurement decisions at your company that free software is a valid alternative and explaining why is necessary, because by default they're going to want to go with what they've always went with.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Respect open source?
Open source is about free (unpaid) labour, nothing else.
Antitrust beat the hell out of movies like Hackers and The Net.
Atleast Antitrust used GNOME, real unix commands, etc... had hot girls, and an actual plot.
Maybe it didn't portray the fineprint of the GPL, but it did pretty well (I thought) at showing how corrupt corporations can be.
no comment
On Slashdot? This has to be the grand-slam heavyweight champion of trick questions.
The coolest voice ever.
As someone who hopes to graduate with a Bachelor of Business Admin and a Bachelor of Science (CS) and has an interest in OSS, my thoughts on this:
Hush! Don't tell them! OSS will be a comparative advantage to some of us. Don't ruin that!
(TWAJS)
I for one welcome our new SCOviet Russian overlords to whom all our base are belong.
The article seems to be pretty concentrated to OSS community. But how about GNU's definition of OSS?
Personally, I think its the license, which answers the question.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Checkboxes
GPL
BSD
Business(You have the code and can change the code but can't resell the code, just used for your project)
Other
you have to UNDERSTAND something before you can RESPECT it.
And it's "you" not "u".
But on theinquirer, this is preaching to the converted, and the linux side banner "blindingly easy" betrays a lack of objectivity in approach. I'm not trolling, but this article won't be noticed by the people who really need to see it.
In the area of marketing the "linux zealot" tag is our own worst enemy and unfortunately that's what this will be labelled.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
Vitamin C is a crucial part of dealing with Open Sores. According to Dr. Bob, vitamin C can be used topically for open sores and wounds. When you put vitamin C topically on a sore or wound it can be the equivalent of eating 30-50 thousand milligrams of vitamin C in the bloodstream! Dr. Bob used this mixture on everything including burns, ulcers, cuts, infections, etc. Dr. Bob also advised using an omega 3 and 6 oil blend and mixing it with the aloe vera and ascorbyl palmitate. Dr. Bob recommended Udo's oil from Flora for an omega oil blend. Then put Vaseline over the oil to seal it at the wound.
Chances are a PHB will have heard some of the anti-OSS FUD that's going around and this article takes no steps to address that. A semi-technical sceptic PHB will dismiss this article.
As a someone who is relatively new to /., the 'geek scene', and alternative software, I'd just like to point out to many people I don't think that OSS is a very simple, obvious concept. I haven't finished reading the article yet, but I think the idea of explaining OSS simply to 'non-geek' people is a good one, considering the "if you don't know what it is, figure it out yourself, we're not pandering to anyone" attitudes I've seen every once in awhile. Well, off to finish reading...
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
Or, perhaps less simply, it's the notion that writing code for its own sake can be worthwhile - both to the writer and to everyone else.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Is "ensurance" a word?
Like the authors I'm a Brit so I know the British distinction between 'insure' and 'ensure' but I'd never say 'ensurance', I'd say 'assurance'.
You know, like 'QA'.
What is Open Source?
Open Source is patient. Open Source is kind. It does not envy.
It does not boast, it is not proud
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered
It keeps no record of wrongs
Open Source does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres
slashdot!=valid HTML
Open Source developers have to respect end users before it will be accepted. No more of this "RTFM, j00 n00b. h4w h4w, I 0wn3d j00. 1337."
The author assumes some things. High Quality? Some software is. OpenSSH for starters. However, anyone who's spent some time installing packages on various GNU or BSD systems knows there are some really awful projects out there too.
Now that I think about it though, thanks to the Java version of ICQ, I think closed source still holds the worst app of all time record...
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
... Open Sores once. Penicillin cleared 'em right up.
Does it make me more or less of a geek that I thouhgt "Player's Hand Book" before "Pointy Haird Boss" when I read PHB?
This code segment actually comes straight from dselect.
Open source is any source that is available. open source software is whatever you want it to be
SCO = Strange Concept, "Open."
The coolest voice ever.
Although I posted offtopic flamebait above, I'm moved enough by this post to respond seriously.
Businesses have a problem these days when it comes to software implementation - people aren't very good at it. This is typically (in my experience), because they have a hard time finding the right people who are expert in implementing software (which in many businesses, is at least as challenging as developing it). This difficulty is compounded when you have to deal with third-parties, which are notoriously unreliable when it comes to satisfying commitments (time, dollars). Those who have the appropriate human capital are the ones best equipped to implement open source effectively - and those who don't, won't.
Now part of the nature of open source is that there isn't a corporate entity out there that bears some responsibility to the organizations implementing the software - and this is where modern executives run into a wall. Without someone on the inside who knows their stuff, they're not going to be implementing anything other than the same old corporate offerings that will come with (mediocre) software and support.
What executives need to realize is that open source doesn't just give their programmers more control, it gives them more control. With the right personnel and a little innovation, open source gives you the power to grow and expand your business in highly specialized ways that proprietary software simply won't be able to match - even in a co-development type of environment (this I know from experience).
So cancel your MSDN subscription, and hire a few competent admins and developers. Then listen to them. It might feel like stepping off the plank into shark-infested waters, but they'll soon realize that they're swimming with the mermaids and dolphins in a sea of technical enlightenment.
Remember the "Foxtrot" cartoon, where the mother mis-heard her son's reference to open source as being "Open Sores".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
While I read slashdot daily, and have an appreciation for Open Source software, I think a lot of you miss the point. I work for a company that builds 3D simulations. For years we used IRIX. SGI was simply the best graphics rendering stations you could buy. We still have some fridge sized boxes, an old Octane, and a couple O2s sitting around.
However, we've moved to Linux. We use Red Hat 7.2. Why? Because Open Source is great? Beacause we're giving back to the community? No. Because Linux allowed us to reuse all our simulation code that was built using Unix interoperabilty on more modern hardware, cheaper. We can go grab a GeForce4 Ti 4600 off the shelf, get a 8MB Buffered IDE HD, and Dual Athlon chips and they'll eat those O2s / Octanes, and even the old fridge sized Onyx. Slap six of them together and you've got a six channel renderer. We did have to change our IG software. We were using Performer, now we use a third party developed renderer.
For years our the company that developed our renderer has supported both Linux and Windows. Now they only support rendering on Windows. They still support the API for Linux though. So now we're looking three options:
1) Devoting time to developing our own Linux based renderer.
2) Continuing to use their API on Linux, but to control chanels on Windows boxes.
3) Converting the simulation over to Windows and dropping Linux.
At this point option 1 is pretty much out. While we have the in house skills to develop an IG, it would take several years to build something to meet our requirements (needs texture paging, terrain paging, must handle terrain sizes in excess of 2GB, etc).
Option 2 looks attractive because it's the least work. And will probably be what's implemented in the short run.
Option 3 will probably be our long run solution as we've had some trouble with nVidia and ATI drivers on Linux. While they do work in most cases, they don't seem quite as robust as their Windows counterparts. Ie with the Quadro cards...
Now if you go back and read over these things, what we considered in deciding what to use were:
1) time
2) cost
3) ease of implementation
You'll note we never said anything about Open Source. When we first moved to Linux we looked at Open Source issues. We use open source development tools. GCC, GIMP, ImageMagick, Glade... But it had nothing to do with the fact they were open source. If they had been sold to us like IRIX was and performed the same functionality we would have bought them.
We're interested in shipping our product, making $$$, and that's what managers are concerned with. The debate over whether or not we use Open Source software is irrelevent. The questions that have to be answered are how it would impact cost, time to delivery, learning curve. The other thing is, you shouldn't expect businesses to go out and just switch to Open Source because you wrote a persuasive article. If there is a system in place, it probably won't be replaced until it's necessary to do so. It's that whole cost thing again. Why replace something that's been paid for that works until it's necesary to do so.
If you answer that with anything other than it will make the company more $$$, or increase productivity, etc... you won't get very far with the suits.
Anti Trust had no plot, the hacking wasnt even real, most hackers use Windows. Also Microsoft, I'm assuming this is who the movie wanted to imply it was about, is one of the most honest corperations on the face of the earth, they support affirmative action and have donated millions of computers running billions of dollars worth of the best most well known software.
Bill Gates also gives scholarships, gives money to India, Africa, China, Europe, this man should be knighted.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
is what open source is really about. I have seen quite a few "Open Source" projects - code released under the GPL - that have been closed development and absolutly useless as an open source project because of this.
Ya the problem is when you use open source software long enough you get used to its "something always needs to be fixed" ways. There's always something that needs tweaking or configing or editing. Nothing ever just works. The problem is the developers have been doing this so long they don't realize it's so bad. Also most of the hardcore users of open source software enjoy this, they think it's fun to always be tweaking and fixing and editing. Sure to them it probably is. I just want a desktop that works. I use GNU/Linux sure, but it definatly needs work if anyone is going to use it on the desktop.
A theory formulated by people who came to age trying to screw universities out of what they considered their own personal property, which was then somehow extrapolated to the real world and subsequently swallowed in extremis by a few technically capable idealists and several million people looking for a free ride who contribute absolutely nothing but "believe" and therefore are part of the "community".
The resulting movement (and its derivatives) can be thought of as the technological version of the catholic church during the depth of the medieval era - in both structure and radical "join us or die" behavior.
Along the way they convince themselves that "some day" they'll make a buck on giving away stuff, and when they don't (which is the most common result), they blame the government, the system, the corporations and the weather for being "unfair".
Basically.
That's an interesting point that many people overlook - just because IBM supports Linux doesn't mean that IBM makes a good partner for smaller businesses.
A couple years ago I was part of a vendor selection process for a WMS, and one the three contenders (EXE) basically eliminated themselves by not demonstrating that they took customers of our size (~$200 million) seriously. I sent them data to use for our scripted demo weeks in advance of our visit, only to have their technical sales rep get back to my voice mail with initial questions at 5:30 p.m. the day before we were to arrive - and by that point I was already on the plane. The demo, obviously, turned out underwhelming.
Their functionality was top-notch, but all the signs were that we'd be a small-ish customer to them, and hence not worthy of focused attention (read: flunky implementation consultants among other issues). A major component of any software purchase decision has to be the potential relationship between the customer and vendor, and how well the customer feels they'll be treated going forward...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
WTF does Irag have to do with open sores?
You nailed it. It's a HUGE economic and practicality advantage in most cases for businesses. If they can maintain their competition (somehow) to keep using the expensive buggy stuff, they can pull ahead quickly. And even better if they completely "get it" and share back, they'll have the help and interest in their products they deserve, their business will do better, they can make more money and pay the help and stockholders more..on and on. I'm amazed that businesses still cling to that which just costs and costs and costs and costs and never really delivers all that well. Let em fail I say.
your g5's coming with jaguar not panther my "1337" haxor friend
A lot of businesses and schools enjoy spending money for some reason. It gives them a false sense of security. And, of course, it can't be good if it's free. Everything that is free is too good to be true.
I think that as more and more of these types of efforts come around, the movement towards seeing open source more widely used will pick up a little speed (as with everything else). Sure, it's only The Inquirer and some computer maintenance company in the UK, but ya gotta start somewhere.
One misconception I had was that open source meant you had to give the product away for free. This was even reflected in version 1.0 of the Open Source Music License I wrote (that I based on the GPL). But that's not so! You only have to give the source away, not the end-product. And you don't even have to make it available for download, you need only sell people CDs of the source for the cost of the media.
Open source isn't so much for the benefit of the end-user as the developer. Or rather, other developers. So it's just as easy to make money on an open source project as a closed one, as long as someone else doesn't take your code and make their own version that better and cheaper. So for MS, open sourcing Word would be a bad idea. But for a musician like myself, "better" is relative. So making your music open-source does nothing but good.
c-hack.com |
Did someone see an image of the virgin Mary, or St. jude in the linux kernel sources?
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
so what if half the projects aren't finished? that means the other half is, and with thousands to choose from, anyone can find what they need. And which is better, finding something your business can use then you can take it from there and more-easily customize to suit, or be forced to pay for a closed source solution that you still have to do that with? Most even expensive closed source programs still require customization, I see the articles here describing all these various expensive programs, they still need admins and coders to make them work exactly how the company wants them to work. One way, the open way, is in most cases cheaper and easier, the other is much more expensive and harder to customize. Gee, tough call there.
The Answer: James Brown
The Question: What is 'What it is'?
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Score: -1, Anti Open Source
Only some of the time. One big problem with open source software is that there's only so much attention to go around. High-profile projects like the Linux kernel and Apache get that attention. But once you get past the top 25 projects or so, attention is limited and quality becomes spotty.
The biggest problem is mid-level open source software that's useful but contains some major design error. It's almost impossible to fix such things. Those projects don't get the attention needed for a major rewrite, and the "patch" approach doesn't generate a redesign.
CVS is a good example of this. It's a basically good idea, implemented badly. CVS is a client/server system with a database back end. But the client/server system is ad-hoc, as is the database system. CVS clients look for specific text messages coming back from the server; there's no proper client/server protocol, not even error codes. The "database system" is just a collection of data files, lock files, and status files, which can get out of sync.
"Subversion" was written to deal with these issues. When it's done, it will do about what CVS does, but hopefully better. That indicates a failure of the patch-based open source process. CVS couldn't be fixed within the process; it was necessary to start a new project and rewrite.
Below the projects that are marginally successful is the dark underside of open source, the thousands of dead and moribund projects on SourceForge. The SourceForge people like to boast about how many projects they have, but for most of them, they're just providing free hosting for trash.
I think the biggest reason keeping businesses from switching is inertia or fear of new things. Everything sort of works right now (if the system goes down, the CEO and/or Board of Directors blames IT, not management) but if management makes a switch to something else entirely and it doesn't work, they're going to lose thier jobs. Trust me, software decisions aren't just based on price, stability and features. Even though Microsoft products sort of work most of the time, they're still beating the fear of the unknown.
For this reason, I really think that Linux/OSS should be pushed on the desktop level. When consultants, like Olliance, come in to install OSS at a company, I think they should put up fliers offering to install Linux on employees' *home* computers, too, if they bring their boxes in. I think one of the greatest unrealized benefits is Walmart selling inexpensive Linux boxes in its stores. That reaches a lot of people, even executives. When they see that it's stable and working and not "scary," it will become viable alternative. Finally, I think some kind of gimmick, like maybe using Linus' birthday as "Linux Day" where everyone who uses it goes to the Mall or somewhere with a bunch of CD-Rs burned with a distro and gives them away to anyone who wants it. The media might even be persuaded to cover something like this. It would spread the costs of producing discs and distribution out over a lot of people. People regularly share their music, why not operating systems, too? I don't know if that would work, but something needs to be done to get OSS onto as many desktops as possible. That's where the real battle for hearts and minds is, and if a CEO (or other high exec) has Linux at home and loves it, you know what will happen at his/her business shortly.
IAAL
We all know these mods are communist and want to mod up liberal posters while modding down conservatives. Havent you learned how the system works?
Sometimes what is most obvious to one person is most unobvious to another. OSS is - to Slashdotters - as obvious as water and sun. To managers, it is a contradictory concept and much of the education has to come in the form of explaining why it is "free". Much of the counter arguments to OSS try to leverage the natural paranoia of business people (GPL virus, OSS patent liability, TCO, etc. etc.).
The simple truth - and this is obvious to any neutral observer - is that the Internet changed the dynamics of the software industry by removing all the previous barriers to organization and communication. What used to require a large organization to produce can now be economically (and this is the key) produced by random professionals in their spare time, by tiny teams working on thin margins, and by organizations who would otherwise do nothing special with the code anyhow.
The key questions about OSS ("who pays?") have been asked before, about the Internet, and we now all know the answers: everyone pays, a little, but since the technology required is so very, very cheap, it comes down to rewarding people's time. And it so happens that for many developers, the product is its own reward.
Software only represents a slice of any business's operation, and whether OSS is free or cheap makes little difference. However, when software is expensive (think SAP or Oracle), it eats so deeply into the business that little is left for other investment.
Managers need first to learn that large swathes of the software landscape are now completely in the domain of "as cheap as air", and only foolish people will still pay for something that their competitors get for nothing.
Managers need secondly to learn that this process keeps on moving. One by one the bastions of commercial software will become commodity items. The businesses with the capacity to be pioneers will always benefit. The rest will follow when the technology curve flattens out and moves into the "general market" and then "late adopter" phase.
OSS is simply a slice of a standard S-shaped technology curve. It's the same curve that drives Moore's Law, and indeed, one can say that software cost has a half-life. One could even estimate this. Allow me to state "Heironymous' Law" of falling software costs: every 18 months, software products fall in cost by half, eventually reaching effective zero.
Which is why we can now get databases, office suites, Beowulf clustering software, etc. etc. etc. for the cost of bandwidth.
Patents, by the way, are a brake on this technology curve, and this is IMHO why those of us who love and feel this curve hate patents so much. Technology wants to be free.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Well, thats a lot of stuff for 400,000!
The article doesn't make mention of free beer. It's all about the free beer man...
From your comment #6286101
"Why do you think Microsoft wont hire Americans anymore? I know, because stupid open source robots are willinng to code for free!! Why hire anyone when Microsoft can just take the open source code, use it in their closed source products, and no one would ever know because no one sees the code!"
From your comment #6286101
"Also Microsoft, I'm assuming this is who the movie wanted to imply it was about, is one of the most honest corperations on the face of the earth, they support affirmative action and have donated millions of computers running billions of dollars worth of the best most well known software. Bill Gates also gives scholarships, gives money to India, Africa, China, Europe, this man should be knighted."
I'm impressed by your ability to troll from both sides of the MS opinion spectrum
I don't care about open source. I just use what's best, and what's cheapest. If you think about this stuff too much you'll go crazy and/or geeky.
...corporate managers would be more willing to work with things such as open source, when the open source community stops referring to them by childish names.
While the attitudes represented here on Slashdot assuredly are not indicative of many who contribute to open source, it's silly to think that the attitudes that frequently show themselves here do not get back to these people. Many of them do read sites such as Slashdot, and until the community can manage to present itself in a respectable manner, and in a way that's acceptable to corporate culture, I don't think widespread adoption will take place.
There's definitely promise in open source, which is why you see companies like IBM and Red Hat attempting to put a polished corporate face that people can associate with on Linux. They're trying to bridge the massive gap between the way corporate managers think, and the way your average Slashdot reader thinks. However, the community has a loud voice... and unfortunately, frequently all that comes out of it is sarcasm and snide comments. These companies can only do so much.
At it's most basic level, FS is concerned about the freedom of users. Users should have certain freedoms. See the FSF's Free Software Definition (FSD). The FSF has also published an article describing what they think FS (Free Software) is better than OS (Open Source).
OSS is more about a development model than user and developer freedoms. The freedoms it ensures to the user and developers are geared towards that development model. See the OSI's Open Source Definition (OSD) (OSD).
Summarily, OSS is a superset of FS, FS a subset of OSS. Anything that is FS is also OSS; however, many things that are OSS are not FS. The FSD has a stricter definition than does the OSD, thus many licenses that the FSD deems too restrictive are acceptable under the OSD. For example, the OSI considers the APSL (Apple Public Software License) to be OSS, but the FSF does not consider the ASPL to be FS.
A relevant quote from the FSF's webpage:
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
You actually think PHBs give a flying rabbit-shit what Open Source is?
Here is the PHB daily priority list:
1) The Lunch Menu
2) What's at Blockbuster on Friday
3) Today's all-day meeting refreshments
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I guess that's like women, except its never guarenteed you'll understand - in fact you never will... ah hell.
-Digital Extremist
No I haven't read the article yet, I just wanted to express how I see the whole OpenSourceness first before getting tainted.
Simply put, OpenSource doesn't say anything about that it should be 100% free (or anything like that). Simply says (according to GPL) that with your distribution (if you used any GPL work) you simply have to provide the source code also.
So, OpenSource is the act of providing the source code to your customers, free from any extra charges, so if they want to custom fit it to their needs they have the avalibility. And if they want to distribute their "custom-fit", they have to give credits where credis are do, by providing the source (as they are/where not the actuall body/organisation/coder whom wrote the first lines of codes of the coreponding program).
If, people are so generous, that they give you "program" for a $0 fee (for what ever reason; goodwill or what ever) and also provide you with full source code (opensource), don't start label "opensourceness" as "free", because there are other bodies/organisation/coders out there that charge $xxx and also provide their code (that is aswell, in my vocabularry, "OpenSourceness", thought limiting if one can't distribute onse own "custom-fit" based on the acquired code).
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
Full flavored, perhaps, if you enjoy tasting what amounts to what the cup would taste like if you ate it after you were through with the coffee.
Any thoughts to this e/n rant? I like Bob Newhart, BTW.
Ha ha ha! Too funny... You forgot "Open source is a VIRUS that will infect all your IP!!!" (You have to imitate the Monkeyboy when you say it, though -- get your face really red, get really sweaty, with the sweaty patches under your arms and the glistening face and bald spot, and run back and forth swinging your arms). ;)
I keep wondering about that guy; if he keeps up all that running and arm waving, he's going to have a heart attack! He's not exactly a spring chicken... Isn't he worried? Maybe he's pulling a Loman and going for a life insurance payout for his family...
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
A new capital investment/business model that's taking the world by storm. It's a more level playing field between corporations and privately held enterprise (purer form of capitalism).
It no longer has much to do about source code
Something I forgot to mention. Despite the fact that both of these groups have slightly different ideologies, in real-world terms, they both agree -- for the most part -- on what licenses are acceptable, which means that individuals from the two movements can and do work together to accomplish common goals (as most of their goals are common).
It is rather like two different groups of individuals who support the right to choose regarding abortion. One group may support that right because of ideological reasons: they think women should be entitled to that choice. Another group may support that right because of practical reasons: they think that the effects of illegalizing it are harmful. In the vast majority of cases, both groups will agree with one another, and can work together to accomplish a common goal. It is called an incompletely theorized consensus. The Founding Father's had such in regards to their conception of privacy.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Come on, you groupthinking clowns, realize your failures and dish out propers here.
Bah, there's so many Matrix/Jedi/Magic references here... Forget all those pop-crap 'reinterpretations', here's the real thing:
Source Te Ching - The Source and Its Power (by Lao Stallman)
That which cannot be compiled, is not the True Source.
That which must be NDA'd is not the Open Source.
The code is the Source of all things, great and small.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
Do you want your boss to understand what you need?
In case you didn't notice (which I am assuming you didn't since the question was asked), your boss won't sign off on a huge shift in company policy without understanding the situation. I am talking more than the "blah blah cheaper" or the "blah blah security" arguments.
Managers respect calm, cool, intellectual evidence. Spitting (side effect of excitement in some geeks), poorly shaven, long-haired, smelly, hippy looking guys, espousing the socialist aspects of open source (that is what it sounds like to most un-informed mgmt types) get nowhere unless they are preaching to the choir.
If OSS were developed by someone and no one was there to see them contribute the code, would it still be OSS?
Why is it every film of Ballmer has him running and jumping, but somehow, he hasn't lost any weight?
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
but on the screens in the movie they used what looked like Java. Even at Evil M$-like Company.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Get it right you insensitive clod! Well-cooked apple pie is only eaten fascists, to us lefties open sauce is the only thing that could make such a dish palatable.
He's got another kinda funny troll elsewhere in this discussion somewhere... He must be in a whimsical mood today. They're pretty good trolls. He almost sounds serious.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Open Source: The re-writing of already released software in order to avoid paying for it.
Man I hope people are in good humor today.
Bow down and worship my multivariate magnificence!
pleeeeeeeease?!!!
Why is thier a Tux icon for Opensource? /me starts a campaign for a whole new opensource icon.
The term "Free Software" is better than "Open Source Software". Open Source has one obvious implication: that you can view the source. Free Software can be taken to mean either free as in speech, or free as in beer: at least there's a 50/50 chance someone will get it right off the bat. Aside from that, as the FSF has said, once the user understands "Free Software as in speech, not beer", s/he won't get it wrong again. Not so easy with OSS.
The FSF is not entirely happy with the term "Free Software", precisely because it's only 50/50. Some other potential names they could use -- e.g., Liberty Software -- are associated with political movements that the FSF does not agree with and are beyond it's scope. Libre Software would be appropriate, but it uses foreign words, which is confusing.
I suggested to RMS that the FSF use "Freedom Software". However, the FSF had apparently considered that as a superior solution, but decided that they couldn't use it, because Freedom Software is the trademarked name of a company that has nothing to do with Free Software. This is a tragic example of how trademark laws are bad for the public. The public would be done a real service if the FSF could call their software "Freedom Software", but trademark laws prevent it.
So, if you really value Free Software, you should work on two things: (1) Finding some way to invalidate the trademark on Freedom Software [look through legal case history, if you're a lawyer]; (2) Starting/contributing to an effort to pay Freedom Software to turn over their trademark to the FSF.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Mostly because I agree that a lot of open source projects exist for that very reason.
But I'm also a cynic.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
All IMHO of course...
The OS concept is basic in the idea that you can view and/or modify (assuming that you have the skills) the functionality of a program being provided to your or your company. In many cases, it also means that the software itself may be free, and will permit personal modificatins, etc.
The OS community as a whole is a combination of people who fall into one or many categories:
a) With a goal to improve IT as a whole, by providing software to the global community that is without strangling license terms, hidden bugs/tricks, or other nasties
b) People that simply want to test their skills, and believe they have something to offer out to the world. The bored, the haxors, those that like to code in their free time.
c) The code-hippies - "code wants to be free", open-source is like free-love and such individuals tend to be highly anti-capitalism or anti-corporation.
Whilst I realize that many people may take offense to the "hippy" remark, you must understand that a lot of the reason the hippy era is looked down upon is because corporate culture one. The concept of "sharing information" for the betterment of everyone is something that has been around long before either hippies, coders, or Open Source - but it's something often quite common to all. I see us as a group with slightly radical ideas, but something real to offer that is becoming increasingly valuable as the corporate noose tightens on the world.
Many projects are (in most ways) free, and are a way of saying to the world, "this is my contribution. Value it, find use in it, and see that there is another way. If you can, take what we have given to you, improve on it, and give it back to the community."
Truly, I doubt that a roomful of OS geeks could get together and agree wholly on anything, but we could co-exist with the knowledge that at least at some level - we share a common cause and common roots. OS is quite possibly one of the few contenders left to give a little hopefulness to an increasingly corporate world, so let's hope we succeed.
My, you're in a whimsical mood today. I know you're trolling, but I don't mind; it's so skillful! I have to appreciate the pure elegance of it. So, I'll play along, just out of respect for your mad skills.
;)
There's not much to say here, but I'll say this: it's not that I care what happens to the Monkeyboy. It's just that I'm morbidly fascinated by it. The spectacle, the weirdness of it all... It's just so freaky!
Anyway, trolling aside, I'd like to point something out: how much money he has is immaterial. I'm happy, I've got plenty of money for my needs, and as a result I feel that I'm far richer than he could ever be. Besides, I'm a great lay, and that's something money just can't buy.
P.S. Bite your tongue! Longhorn! Are you MAD? Go FreeBSD!
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
I dunno; it's freaky, isn't it? Maybe it's because he's always out of breath after about twenty seconds, so he never gets to the stage where he'd actually burn fat (they say it takes at least 20 minutes to a half hour to burn up all your blood sugar when you exercise)...
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
You forgot to invoke Godwin's Law.
One word: Medicine
Man, what happened? You used to be a, nay, THE classic example of the "well-meaning dimwit" troll.
Now you're just reaching. Sad how some folks don't know enough to retire when the start going downhill.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
Irrelevant of his obvious dislike of the FSF -- which I disagree with -- at least he knows the difference between FS and OSS. The original *imbecile* does not know that difference. Worse yet, he posted a top-level comment that will confuse many new users into thinking that FS and OSS are two different names for exactly the same thing.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Wow, I broke fucko. Go me.
That most interesting of human endeavors whereby some people give away the fruit of their labor and get nothing in return.
Are you sure?
Linus got GCC.
RMS got a kernel, and the foundation of Unix utilities.
The Apache group got a robust, stable webserver, and multiple OSes to run it on.
They all got the internet. (The internet was founded on open source ideals.)
With open source, everybody wins.
SUCKED. It was a hatchet job.
Right now the most accurate portrayal of a computer hack is in "Matrix Reloaded," where Trinity uses nmap to exploit the hole in SSH1.
However, the finest and most entertaining movie about geeks remains "Pirates of Silicon Valley." AOL Time Warner needs to release it on DVD. Soon.
"Revolution OS" is the most factually accurate movie about geeks. However, it lacks entertainment value, and is clumsily edited, scored and directed. Someone especially fell asleep at the switch during the audio mix...the Philip Glass-clone music is mixed way too loud over everything else. Still, it's important because it tells the Linux story as it is, like it is.
Pointy-haired Bosses need to see "Revolution OS". It will keep their attention better than a multi-page white paper.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
This process to instill some type of caste/class system within a such a broad representation of society seems a little idiotic. The corporations that have come under the OS wing have done so because it made economic sense, not because of the dot com hype. Linux on wall street went with little publication, yet was "the" largest driving force for enterprise linux.
A select group of people welding status for social and economic gain has done little but rip this country apart and will likely do the same to Open Source.
Your talking BS or dot com hype, heh, surprised your not in jail yet.
"The way a stupid person beats a group of smart people is by making one of them number one."
I mean, sure, for the biggest and largest contracts, that is true.. but only thet biggest and largest.
What many people find with open source is that, regardless of the lack of a formal definition of who provides support.. SUPPORT IS THERE.
It's far easier to get support, meaning, to get help solving your problems with most open source stuff than it is with closed stuff, period.
Ever had to call microsoft?
Q: Master Yoda, what is the Source?
A: Hrmm, Mysterious is not the source. The source is all around us. It is found in Apples and the Pc's that render the fishes and the trees. The source is especially strong in the Unix, which is known as the light side of the Source. But beware. Fear, Uncertinity, and Doubt. These are the tools of the Darkside....
-Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
From the article:
Open Source software solutions exist for virtually all types of business applications.
Don't get me wrong. I am a very big proponent of Open Source software. Not only do I think it is a good idea, I honestly think that it is very good for humanity as a whole. My only problem is that that statement is somewhat misleading.
While the basic office application suite is just reaching a maturity level where it can be plausibly considered a viable solution, business applications consist of a lot more than that, and often include very specialized industry-specific niche software. A PHB is going to read that statement, look at whoever handed them the article (it must be printed for the PHB to read it, so all this is happening in meatspace), and ask them if there is an open source version of the real estate accounting software they use. Those of us who have seen such software will immediately realize that we are not talking about a speadsheet, nor a Quicken clone, but a very complex and full featured accounting package some oddball company with no competition writes for that particular industry. It will be buggy, bloated, and incredibly expensive, but it is often the only tool to do certain things that particular business needs.
Furthermore, there are certian generalized types of business software, most notably document management, groupware, and workflow that don't (to my knowledge) have effective open source solutions. (Part of the reason I am risking a troll mod in writing this is to find out that I am wrong, so if you know something I don't, please reply!)
The way I see it, the Open Source approach to these sorts of problems is to put the problem solver closer to the problem. Rather than pay $80000 to some screwy outfit in Nevada who happens to write the world's only accounting and office managment package for veterinarians, you hook up with the local Linux guru who knows something about PHP, MySQL, etc. and have him develop a database solution. This leverages the flexibility and power of Open Source software and results in a fairer and more responsible arragement between the providers and consumers of technology services.
If that business model is what we are all about (as Open Source people), don't we need to sell that idea to PHBs?
Don't believe me? Then just ask Raymond. It is in his own words!
It will come back, stronger and more faithful than ever?
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I can see it now along with this, on the cover of the card, a beautiful elfin face looking longingly into a CRT...
and when you open card it says, "See why you were a dumb shit for buying Microsoft?"
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
What is programming?
How can a cursor be moved across the screen?
What are computers?
> Open Source developers have to respect end users
"Open Source developers" are not a monolithic entity. They are just people. All kinds of folks write open source software - nice people, mean people, nice people who are having a bad day, people with big egos, people who want to help, etc.
That being the case, there will always be people who respond to questions with "RTFM j00 n00b." And there are others who will respond with "thanks for the feedback, please see question number 12 in the FAQ, does that help?".
If you're working on a project, you have a choice every time someone posts to your lists/forums/whatever - how will you respond?
The Army reading list
This made me squirm a little:
Open Source software has the following characteristics, some of which are not usually found in legacy commercial software:
# Control resides with the user
# Highly stable
# Proven security
# End-User input to evolving functionality
# Excellent quality
# Highly flexible
# No or reduced License Fees
# No vendor lock-in
# Self-determined upgrade path
# Can run on less expensive hardware
# Very cost-effective
# Freedom of vendor choice
# Fast development cycles
# Ongoing evolution.
Wow, all open source projects have these features? I think it's important to let managers out there understand that there *are* some high-quality OSS projects out there, but it's not nice to just ignore the fact that most OSS work is crap.
Sure, you can find 300 projects in SourceForge for any given need... but most of them are still in the concept phase, or comprise a few crappy pieces of code that are currently running on a single teenager's home server.
I just tend to think it doesn't help anyone to present such a one-sided viewpoint.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
It's interesting that you mention the "hippy stigma". Today's CEOs are from the hippy age. So are the corporate hawks running the US today. The neocons are former "liberals". And if you think this is a long stretch I got two words: Sonny Bono.
Typical isn't it. In business and government and surely also in the justice systems it seems that the 60s and early 70s produced quite its opposite in the end. It's not explained as a counter culture because it's those same people (at least for a substantial part it must be) that are in power now. Not all of them of course but many. It can't be explained adequately with coming of age either.
So maybe this is better put into terms of class and not of culture or zeitgeist. But in every zeit the geist will fall for it. And then the "hippy stigma" is just another stick to wack the dog with. The dog in this case is anything grassroots that appears to be gaining influence. Kneejerk reaction and thus popular amongst the influential and the chumps alike.
Philosopher's hat off now.
really?
I think it's more about the natural process of commoditization.
You can't charge 150% markup on Thyme and Sage forever, you know.
Also, most software engineering takes place for people that use software, not people that sell it. Those people have good reason to share a bedrock of tools.
But your average whiney capitalist think they ought to collect six figures for software written in 1985 just forever --- that's the fair thing. Oh well, it's a battle, you'll win or lose and right and wrong will have little to do with it.
-pyrrho
Budgets are meant to be spent. If software doesn't cost anything, it can't come out of a budget. If you don't spend your budget, it won't grow. If your budget won't grow, it shrinks and so on, and so on, and so on.
Shrinking budgets sound great on paper, but there isn't a manager in world who wants to do next year's work with less money than this year.
This is only true if you distribute the source code with the binary.
> I believe you can even withold the source until it is requested (don't quote me on that, though).
Yep, but you have to provide the source to anyone who asks for it.
IANAL, but: (Section 3b of GPL)
If you get really literal, there's a possible exception of either the original author or the FSF. (ie, you don't have to give it to the second party
However, the US accounts for more software-using individuals than any other nation, to my knowledge.
Saying Libre Software would be fine for the French division of the FSF. Actually, there is a page Libre Software (Google it). Not for the English division.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
yes, it is, and that is a good thing. I think that in a fair community unpaid work should be encouraged and (paradox) paid for. Schemes like citizen's income build upon the idea that one should be free to do paid or unpaid work, in any proportion, and still have a living. Look it up, or check my earlier post on the subject in another discussion.
Perhaps a little off-topic but... Is it just me or does the opensource logo look like a green toilet seat? - They need a better logo, I mean really, a green toilet seat?
Check it out...
http://www.opensource.org/
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
There's always something that needs tweaking or configing or editing. Nothing ever just works.
This seems to be something that plagues many programs, not just open source ones.
Problem is, when you have billions of possible hardware combinations running trillions of different application combinations, something will need tweaking.
Not at all. The GNU General Public License was written by the Free Software Foundation for the Free Software movement over a decade before the Open Source movement began. These two movements have different philosophies. Nothing in the pairing of the Open Source movement and the GNU General Public License tells you this. The Free Software movement supports the freedoms to share and modify software and compels you to notice that the benefits the Open Source movement champions come from the freedoms of Free Software (freedoms which the Open Source movement eschews).
Digital Citizen
It's power is exceeded only by it's mystery.
I think all the big Open Source projects should have this.
Have a feature request link on the website. After the link is pressed a text box to explain the feature is given and paypal/credit card payment system that allows you to list the amount of money (if you wish) to reward the programmer(s) who complete your task.
This would turn open source development into a market economy, more so than it is now. Big companies can afford to put a OS developer on their payroll to help out and obviously the companies interests would be the programmers first priority, but the smaller end users would now be able to offer $1, $5, $10, $25, $50, $100 (or however much it is worth to them) to who ever comes out with a patch that fixes their problem or adds their requested functionality.
Others who wish to see this feature/bug fix implemented could contribute to the fund in whatever increment they choose.
I know 50 bucks doesnâ(TM)t seem like much but some of the bug fixes and features that users request are easy to implement and are just tedious, little, small changes that no one wants to do. This small monetary incentive might speed things up a bit. 50 bucks can also be seen as a 50 dollar coupon on your next computer component purchase. The vast majority of computer components that arenâ(TM)t the top of the line are about 50-200 bucks. CPUs, MB, HDD, CD/DVD R/RW, add in cards, graphics cards, sound cards, scanner, printer, flash memory.
There are probably some particulars that would need to be worked out if the bug fix/feature is coded by more than one person. But such disputes could go to the project maintainer to divvy out the funds correctly.
Why, because they use a lot of meaningless business jargon? No doubt about it, that article is aimed squarely at PHBs.
Looks like a job for Bullfighter!
Sure, there are some notable exceptions. Apache, OpenOffice, Postgres, Zope, Mozilla and assorted PHP webapps (though not PHP itself) are reasonably easy to install. Some of these packages, such as OpenOffice, are even relatively easy to configure. However, due to the nature of the underlying OS, none of these packages will ever be as polished as, say, the Windows notepad or Microsoft Office (bloat notwithstanding). Yes, open source has come a long way, but it still has a long way to go if it wants to catch up to commercial products... With the exception, of course, of the packages for which there are no viable commercial analogs, such as Apache & PHP -- they have nothing to catch up to, so they will always be messy in some way.
>|<*:=
That being the case, there will always be people who respond to questions with "RTFM j00 n00b."
That's true, of course. But in my (purely anecdotal and by no means exhaustive) personal experience, there is a greater concentration of such individuals in the free/open source world than in the commercial world. Perhaps one reason for this is that being rude/obnoxious to your potential customers isn't a good way to get them to give you money.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
> there is a greater concentration of
:-)
> such individuals in the free/open source
> world
Yup... I think that relates to the barrier being low for starting an open source project. I mean, all you have to do is find a web site somewhere. Any jerk can do that. To start a company, you usually have to get along with at least a few people
> being rude/obnoxious to your
> potential customers isn't a good
> way to get them to give you money.
Can't argue with that.
It's too bad when developers are rude - someone approaching and asking a question is a golden opportunity for improvement - you can answer their question, and then go improve the documentation/code/web site to answer their question without your intervention in the future. All good stuff.
The Army reading list
But having dealt with "support" for a variety of packages.. yes, sometimes you get help.
The thing is, In all the OSS I've used in a commercial setting (usually corporate), I've never once come across anything where I could not get my answers as fast, or faster, than for any product we had a commercial support agreement for... I guess that's my point.
So the assertion that "support is not available" Is just not true, although you may not be able to easily define where that support comes from, in practice, it's not an issue.