Slashdot Mirror
The Open Group's New Open Source Strategy
Bruce Perens writes "The Open Group hasn't always had the best reputation in the Open Source community, mostly because of their handling of Motif, which remained proprietary for much too long. But there's no arguing with the success of our community, and now the Open Group leadership understands that their organization must be fully involved in Open Source... or it's time for them to change their name. To that end, the Open Group contracted me to develop an Open Source strategy for their organization. The draft strategy has been published and they are requesting comment. - Bruce"
>> Open Source = Viral.
It's because people have pride in their work and want to share it with others that open source exists.
This is perhaps the greatest (and one day maybe even the only) threat to Open Source.
As much as this does sound like a troll put yourself in the place of a PHB...
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"Open Source = Viral."
I'd agree except for one minor detail:
No one forces you to plunder GPL'd (and other similarly licensed) code.
Millions of programmers and developers get along just fine with the ideals set forth in 'open source' licenses. They also greatly benefit from the fact that some random person or corporation can't then steal their work.
Bruce,
I think that the opening section of your draft strategy is the best summary of the current state of the world of open-source/closed-source detente. It's exactly right that proprietary solutions are failing, and will fail with increasing rates, as open source proliferates and hardware increasingly becomes a commodity.
I have two issues with the summary. The first is that it a strategy should be a long-term document, something that might be as valid five or ten years from now as it is today (this compares to a tactical position.) I don't think that the current stated strategy, while appropriate to this time of flux, will be appropriate then.
Second, I just have a issue with the 'Sorry Vendors' line at the end of the first section -- everything else in the document is straightforward, concise, and emotion-free.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
An important issue...
My theory is that free software will self-destruct if all programmers lose their jobs. A lot of people who create free software are volunteers. Most of these people have other full-time jobs that pay for their living. My view is that if NO developers were paid for their jobs (doesn't matter what), then the free software movement will collapse. Thes people would instead spend time searching for jobs to make a living.
What all this means is that what you are saying won't happen (ie. people won't lose jobs). If everyone started losing jobs (I don't think this will happen--other threats like out-sourcing jobs/governments defaulting on debts/currency depreciation/etc will have an impact though), the movement will slow down and die.
To answer your question, the free software environment will exist forever--or at least as long as the programming profession exists. What I said mainly applies to free software; open-source software, on the other hand, is a slightly different matter.
KoalaBear33
......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy
To me these issues are quite complex, and a draft like this need a follow up here at Slashdot soonish. Perhaps within a week to get a good brainstorming settle.
Unfortunately all good remarks will come very late to this message, when people have had time to read it carefully. Then, there are already more than 500 comments, of less value and people don't really care any longer.
My suggestion, in cases like these, would be to use the Slashdot forum as a forum with delay - as is done before an upcoming interview. A short notice in advance and a more indepth follow later. Let people have a few days to think it over and get a refreshener then. Perhaps overdoing it? Whatever.
So it seems to me that adding features to, say, Open Office would be part of my job too, were we only using it. The process would be something like, "Oh shoot, you can't paste tab-delimited text into Calc, I wonder if anyone's working on this...oh look, someone is...I wonder if I can help..."
Still, I suppose that there would need to be organizations such as Apache, Mozilla etc that support initial development efforts. But surely these could be nonprofits like they are now?
Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor
I don't disagree with you. Chances are that this type of development will shrink as open source software replaces proprietary software. It will shrink, but it won't die away. Companies that make their living off of selling systems (IBM) or hardware (Intel) will continue to fund open-source develeopment.
Finding God in a Dog
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The key section is titled "Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members?", and from my reading of that
section, the answer is "no".
You say how a "nonrivalrous public good" is good
for the general population, but generally bad for
vendors. Well, the Open Group members are those
vendors, they are not the "general population"
or even "users".
You talk about reduced vendor margins and how vendors
must shift to services and make other "uncomfortable changes". But you never make any case
that Open Source is good for vendors. In fact,
you seem to be saying that it is *not* good for vendors.
You talk about HP's 40% profit margin and say that
those good times are over. That may be good for
consumers and the industry overall, but it certainly isn't good for HP.
If you really think that Open Source is good for
HP, Sun, IBM, and the others, then you need to
spell out the reasons much more clearly and
concisely. That section right now sounds like you're
saying "Open Source isn't as bad for us as you might think".
Andy
Discriminating against bad code for demonstratably valid reasons is not equivalent to descriminating against people based on arbitrary social standards.
I'll be impressed when they actually release the source code to DCE 1.22 under the LGPL like they have been saying they are going to do for about a year now. Until then it is just a well written paper by Bruce Perens. The Open Group so far has a horrible track record grasping the concept of "open"
Finkployd
Anybody that could afford the API document could implement. Years ago when I wanted to know what POSIX really said, I just couldn't afford a copy. And I couldn't justify it to get the company to spring for it either. So I got an O'Reilly book instead.
Mind you, this is exactly why a famous "POSIX work-alike" system is able to do exactly that. Get a copy of the spec, start coding.
The reason why Open Source user interfaces are so bad is because the entire Open Source movement is engineer-centric, and most engineers (especially Open Source ones) are incredibly clueless when it comes to understanding and being empathic with the non-technical users who are using their software.
For years people in the HCI field been screaming at open source engineers to design the UI before the code is written, because there are things that pop up in the UI design process that have lower-level ramifications that engineers don't usually consider when they go the code-first approach. If these issues aren't taken care of immediately and much code is written, the engineers will be loathe to change something just because it makes the software more usable, and the result is that you've got usability problems that take years to fix (if they ever are).
The response we typically get when we tell the engineers they need to come up with the user interaction before major code is written: "You obviously don't understand the Open Source method".
While I am all for OSS, I fail to see how giving engineers even more power will make the situation any better.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
i would say that open code that must remain open is less open.
:)
:)
I would say that people who can't enslave and torture their neighbors are less free than people who can.
Freedom is inherently paradoxical -- if you have the freedom to lose your freedom, then you're potentially not free (once you lose your freedom), but if you don't have the freedom to lose your freedom, then that's clearly a freedom you don't have, so you're not absolutely free. Or to put it another way, you can't have both the freedom to swing your fist wherever you like and the freedom to have an unbroken nose. (Unless you're the only one with freedom -- but we usually call that situation "dictatorship").
Anyway, I'm not going to get into the GPL is/isn't "truly" free. I'm just pointing out that absolute freedom is a myth, so any argument that relies on ideals of absolute freedom is flawed. Beyond a certain point (and I think the GPL is well within those bounds), I think it's all good, and I really don't care. I'm able to sympathize with both the BSDL advocates and the GPL advocates without necessarily agreeing with either side. And that's because I have the freedom to form my own opinions, or even reserve judgement, if I want.