Slashdot Mirror
Ask Bruce Perens About Linux and Open Source
A lot is going on these days, ranging from the endlessly amusing SCO soap opera to plenty of mostly positive news about Linux and Open Source adoption by both corporate and government users, not to mention an increasing number of commercial applications being ported to Linux. And, of course, LinuxWorld is right around the corner. Bruce Perens is certainly as appropriate a person as any to help us get a handle on the current (and possibly future) state of Linux and Open Source. We'll send him 10 of the highest moderated questions, and post his answers as soon as he gets them back to us. As usual, one question per post, please, and don't bother asking questions that can easily be answered with a couple of minutes' worth of online research.
What do you feel is the greatest threat to the open source movement? Is the threat corporate, legal, self-inflicted, or a mixture of both?
(Oh, and FP.)
Bash script for FP whores
Are you aware of any background moves by the major players in this farce that could bring a speedy resolution? Or, do you have any hopes for a speedy resolution?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
What is the future of SCO Linux Licensing. Will large corporation fall for it, just to be on the safe side? Or are the corporation going to avoid using linux, till the final outcome of the saga.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
In all honesty, what is the best overall desktop operating system at this time, and what do you think will be the best overall desktop operating system in a year? Two years? Five years?
Isn't Mr Perens a slashdot regular himself or something? Wouldn't that more or less defeat the whole purpose of holding a slashdot interview, then send him the question he can read himself and then making him answer them while he could have answered them by just replying?
Hate me!
In recent weeks, we've seen a concerted attack of FUD regarding open source in general but Linux in particular; all signs point to this being but the first in a series of new battles. I think it's been too easy for a lot of people to scoff at SCO's brazen and seemingly suicidal behavior, mistaking what is in fact a serious threat.
With that in mind, what are some ways you think open source/free software users and organizations can counter these attacks and, much more importantly, attack back?
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
If Linux development is supremely messed up by SCO, do you see the BSDs picking up, and taking over where Linux once did?
Bruce,
A while ago IIRC you cancelled plans to demonstrate a technology which would have run afowel of the DMCA in defference to the wishes of your then-employer HP. Now that you are no longer with HP, do you plan to go ahead with it?
I'm not trying to goad you on, mind you. Breaking the law is a serious business and if you have reconsidered, I certainly won't think any less of you.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. BB
Putting the current SCO thing aside, what do you think about software producer liability? Microsoft recently made a big deal about increasing how much they'll "protect" their customers, but that's mostly a PR stunt. Do you think that there will be a major court case incolving IP that "slips" into software, and that it might change people's trust in Open Source software?
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
What do you think is the biggest hinderance to open source adoption at this point? Is it the lack of a central structure for support (e.g. people seeking support for Microsoft products go to Microsoft, a single solid entity as opposed to numerous communities and organizations of open source), or is it simply because there are too many choices out there? Do you think open source will eventually become organized enough to have a single representation, such that there is one massive repository of information for all to use?
Seriously. Because we can't. That thing's demented.
Based on the ability of most users out there, especially in the corporate world (I work in tech support). Is there any chance of Linux EVER replacing Windows on the desktop?
Sure, to slashdotters, we all know what it means, but how would you explain the Open Source movement to someone that isn't so technically inclined?
What would you tell them that would, say, change from Linux to Windows?
I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
I have been wondering for a while how sustainable open source is. It seems like there is a great open source solution for every possible need: OS, Web Server, database, etc. If these tools get widely adopted, and push the commercial products out of the market, will they be shooting themselves in the foot by making many, many developers unemployed, thereby destroying their own developer base? Or do you see a situation where open and closed (ie free and for-profit) software exist in equilibrium?
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
Bruce, we all know you're very active on the political side of hacking, and we also know that as a community, hackers aren't especially active. Given that a hacker who reads Slashdot cannot fail to be aware of the many issues that we face, and their gravity, what do you think hackers and geeks as individuals can do to be useful, and as a related question, how do you think the hacker community can best respond to the threats of the DMCA, EUCD, copy protected CDs, Palladium, and other digital rights issues?
What are your favorite smaller open-source projects that not everyone may have heard of, that you feel should be better known?
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Are there any questions you think people should be asking you, that they never do?
I believe that you can do well at advocating the use of open source software. So, how can it be done?
With regard to Apple and their adoption of open source, do you think that their contributions to open source projects have been generally one-way (i.e. only Apple benefits) or two-way (everyone benefits)? Do you think they should be more open, or are you happy with how they currently contribute to open source projects?
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Hi Bruce,
could you please tell us a bit about your experience working with HP? I am interested if you were able to share your views on open source with the HP execs. What were their thoughts about it?
Do you see open source becoming more accepted by large corporations or will it remain largly popular with the developer/hobby crowd?
Hi Bruce:
Recently Open Group ask to you for develop one Open Source Strategy. Which others groups/enterprise do you like/wish to contact you for similar task?
Regards,
-Bryam
Where do you see Linux in 10 years? Will it be a completely ubiquitious OS, used on every computer? Will it just dominate one market? Will it fade away? Or will it be outlawed? There are people who will have you believe any one of these scenarios; which do you think is most likely, and why?
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Open source really turns the business of software upside-down. Some open source-related companies have done well, others have not. In your opinion, which business models are the most appropriate?
What incentive do you think GNU/Linux and other free software offerings give these entities to use free software? What functionality does it enhance in practical terms for both governments and corporations? (and security doesn't count; it's not like the penguin is devoid of known holes, and under a whole lot less scrutiny than Windows)
And finally, if the functionality/effectiveness differences between free and closed OSs really are as minor as they seem at first corporate glance, what path do you think the Open Source community should take in regards to making free software distinctive and superior?
All the best,
~Tris.
PS (to all slashdot flamewar-starters) -- No, I don't like Windows. Yes, Linux might well be the second coming (ra ra ra, join the hurd (hoho mildly clever)). It's for the sake of argumentation and making a point. Now, go ahead and subject me to the Spanish-Linux Inquisition
Slashdope 1: Do you worship only one Linux?
Slashdope 2: You mean GNU/Linux!
Slashdope 1: Erm... yes. Well, do you?
Me: I suppose so.
Slashdope 1: Not good enough! Send him to the --- comfy chair!
-----[0_o]-----
We are not amused.
It would seem that hardware manufacturers taking (financial) interest in open source may be the force we need to counter-balance entrenched Big Software. Econ 101 supports this idea, as lowering the total cost of owning computers should result in more being sold. Having IBM and HP (maybe Sun?--they seem conflicted) on board is great, but there are a lot of hardware companies that still don't get it. Obviously, companies like Intel and AMD and ATI and NVidia have to weigh the benefits of actively (and monetarily) supporting Linux and other open source against the problems it might cause in their current business arrangements (read: don't want to piss off Micrsoft).
The question(s): Do you think their current lukewarm (at best) support represents enlightened self-interest, or are they missing the boat? Is there anything the community can do to improve the returns for companies that do jump on the bandwagon?
While I think we all know how absurd SCO's claims are, suppose they win. Where will Linux go? Overseas? /dev/null? Will it be rewritten from scratch? Or will people simply buy licenses willingly?
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Do you often find that people confuse you with other easily typable names: Bruce Brackets? Bruce Curly-Braces? And the like?
Bruce () does however, rock.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
What do you think the net influence of Apple's OS-10 is on Linux?
There are reports of people fleeing Linux to OS 10 because they still get *NIX but with a more easily usable/configurable software suite, but on the other hand, Apple's contributing to open source, manufacturing another hardware platform for Linux, and generally providing another alternative to Redmond.
So, is the competition good for Linux, or not so much?
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
I recall reading an article that was posted on Freshmeat that said that the open source development community should only work on developing the more popular open source software projects. It was said that the projects on sites like Sourceforge with low activity levels should just be abandoned so that open source software that stands out will be get the most attention and so it will be more likely to be considered superior. What is your opinion on this? Do you think the Open Source Community should rally behind the big projects?
You're here on Slashdot where, as you know, you have the opportunity to tell much of the community what to do. Here's your chance to direct us. :)
I see cross-licensing as the product of a broken patent system - if patents were given out only for truly original and non-obvious inventions, cross-licensing would be very rare. But along with the litigation that necessitates it, it's a fact of life. How much of a threat to GNU/Linux do you think the inability to cross-license presents, and do you think it might create a barrier to its use?
How has the open source movement been affected by the current economy, in particular by the outsourcing of development jobs overseas?
Bruce:
You've surely noted that others are indirectly jumping on the Linux FUD wind blowing out of SCO.
Sun's McNealy, for one, has been insinuating that Linux is a risky proposition (compared to the clearly legally-unencumbered Solaris UNIX which Sun owns outright). At first, this just seemed like slams against IBM (the old: my UNIX is better than your flawed UNIX), but Sun's AIX attacks seem to have given way to suggestions that Linux and Linux users are endangered by the SCO situation.
Have Slashdotters and the Linux community generally given Sun a free ride on this and who else do you think have been shameless opportunists here? Who else deserves some of the vilification that SCO is getting?
Suppose I work at Microsoft designing Outlook, and then dabble in programming for Evolution when I'm at home. What's to stop me from thinking I'm doing the OSS community a favor and slipping some of the newest Outlook code into KMail to give it a new feature?
Sure, I'd be legally liable if MS found out I did it, especially if it was deliberate. But what should/can be done by OSS project leads to ensure that all code others contribute is entirely legal?
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Do you agree with this analysis? And if so, how does the Open Source community combat this?
Thanks, Tom
When will we see REAL support for Linux on the desktop? The Kernel is ready, the desktops are ready, the distros are ready, we have tons of apps. Only thing missing is real support from the OEM's. Sure, they support Linux on the servers, but few offer Linux-desktops. And those who do have very limited selection and they are hidden deep deep. No OEM pushes Linux on the desktop, not even IBM.
Do you see any change occurring in this space? At what pace can we hope to have some REAL support for the Linux-desktop? I dream for the day when Linux will be the default OS OEM's offer with Windows being the optional extra.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Bruce,
You say that you use the two terms Free Software and Open Source interchangibly. At the same time, depending on the year, month, phase of the moon, etc. you seem to declare your loyalty to one or another of these two camps almost to the exclusion of the other.
Can you please elaborate your views on this disconnect in people's mind on where exactly you stand on the issue?
- Serge
Umm... a dupe?
That interview you reference was in 1999, four years ago almost to the day. It was the first Slashdot reader-generated interview ever, which is why I particularly wanted to talk with Bruce this week.
I don't know how things have been in your life, but in mine, in Bruce's and in the rest of the world -- and most especially in the worlds of Linux and Open Source -- many things have changed since then.
Good historical interest to see the differences in questions *and* answers between then and now, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dupe.
You may not have noticed, but some media outlets interview the same people over and over.
Heck, I saw an interview with that President Bush guy a couple of days ago on the TV news, and I swear they quoted him just last year...
- Robin
It seems to be taken as a near-universal trusims that copyright is necessary to foster the arts and 'creativity,' while patents are necessary to stimulate the sciences and the 'innovation' of new ideas. In other words, without intellectual property monopoly rights (be they temporary or perpetual) humanity will cease to create anything (other than marijuana plants and dirty laundry). To many of us, OSS (and namely the success of Linux--the official #2 threat to Microsoft, from their own mouth) is proof enough that the "intellectual property bargain" truism is nothing but a falsity. A falsity that hinders innovation, creativity, the arts and the sciences. From reading some of your interviews, I get the impression that you feel the same way. I think we can all agree that copyright terms are ridiculously and unconstitutionally lengthy (Eldred notwithstanding), but do you think these IP monopolies need to exist in the first place? Could you elaborate on what your views of copyrights/patents (IP laws in general, not just software patents) are and should be?
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
A lot of people equate Open Source with Linux, but what are your opinions on Open Source on Windows? Of course Open Source works well on Linux, it falls more in line with the philosophy of the OS. In your opinion, is it more beneficial to keep the concepts of Open Source and Linux coupled, or to get the message of Open Source out there in any way possible?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I used to work on Linux professionally at a very large, three letter acronymed company around the same time you got yourself fired from HP.
The perception from our side of the fence was that you were a egotistical, idealistic hothead that was doing more harm than good as a representative of GNU/Linux and the open source movement.
Specifically, you were looked at as an advocate/spokeperson for the Debian project, and that association at the time was hurting Debian's chances of being taken seriously as a first-tier distribution option for vendors doing commercial work.
My question is simple: did you get a bad rap? What were you trying to accomplish at HP, and what are you trying to accomplish now.
Posted anonymously as to protect my own marketability.
Mr Perens, The European parliament is scheduled to vote for or against software patents on the 1st of September. A number of MEPs, most of them British, try to push the Parliament to adopt laws similar to the US ones. Microsoft and legal firms specialized in IP are pushing hard for it. In fact, the first proposal for this directive was written by an employee of BSA. Currently patents related to software algorithms are illegal in Europe, which does not prevent the European Patent Office from accepting them anyway. Bill Gates made clear in a recent interview that IP was a problem for Linux. Do you think Microsoft could in the future sue Linux companies on the basis of patent violation? If this happens, what should be the reaction of the open source software community?
Between the SCO lawsuit, Bill & Steve's IP remarks, and the Gartner group's recommendation, it looks like the corporate adoption Linux may have a tough road ahead. While most people here believe that Linux will come out on top of this particular issue, I feel this exposes a huge problem regarding Open Source software and its adoption in large corporations. Specifically, the end-users of Open Source software can be the targets of lawsuits if a company claims the software infringes on their intellectual property.
So my question is, as a consultant who promotes Open Source software, what is the answer to a potential business client that asks the question "Does using Open Source software make my company a possible target for a lawsuit?"
I realize this is an issue in the closed-source world as well, however, it seems that the closed-source software vendor would be liable for infringements (see recent changes regarding indemnity in Microsoft's EULA), plus the fact that it is closed-source may make it harder to discover these infringements in the first place. Would buying your Linux from RedHat put the legal burden on RedHat? What about some random Open Source project? Does downloading the RPM from redhat.com make RedHat the vendor?
Whether or not the vendor covers you is another story -- it all comes down to perception -- and right now it seems that Open Source software may be perceived as a risk to corporate health.
I agree with another response to this post that it is not a question, but a bit of rhetoric, and should thus be excluded from the interview.
However, I would like to point out that much of the "political/ethical/moral spin" attributed to open source may in fact not be "emotional baggage", but simply another level of non-functional software requirements specification.
For example, when I choose software, one of the first things I look at is license. I typically choose software with a free/open license (if available and adequate) over software with a proprietary license, even if the proprietary software happened to have a slightly larger feature set, slightly better performance, etc... That is not to say that I would never choose a piece of proprietary software, just that it has to have an *extremely* compelling feature for me to do so. Fortunately for me, virtually all tasks I do with software can be performed adequately by open source software.
I don't consider my choice to be an emotional one, I consider it to be a rational one. By choosing OSS, I guarantee that I am free from licensing/auditing issues, that I will not suffer unduly from an orphaned product or be forced to upgrade because of vendor lock-in, that I can more easily diagnose/fix bugs, etc... These are all what are known as non-functional software requirements.
Perhaps you have had no training in the engineering side of computer science, but there are two overall kinds of software requirements: functional and non-functional. Functional software requirements are the kind you clearly prefer, however not all software requirements can be boiled down to the cold, hard logic and math needed by functional requirements. You cannot specify non-functional requirements numerically, nor can you define them with predicate calculus, but they are requirements which have benefits, costs, and rationals none the less. When gathering software requirements, you ignore non-functional requirements at your own peril.
So take care the next time you accuse people of making emotional decisions. Perhaps you simply are not looking at all of the layers of their decision-making process.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
We've seen Australia and Germany use some counter-legal action against SCO's FUD. Why is it not happening in the US? Surely there must be some laws in the US preventing people from claiming ownership of something without having proved it (yet)? They are damaging an industry with no evidence of their claims (yet), there must be some legal recourse for that industry to recover damages or at least shut them up?
PS: I posted this question earlier but it didn't seem to make it, so am posting it again.
My question is regarding the current trend of the USPTO issuing overly broad technology patents. Eventually this has to result in a technological gridlock where nothing can be done without infringing on an existing patent. Open source software is especially vulnerable to this since the community model is not designed to address patent threats. My question is what can we do to stay clear of the patent fray and do you think that there will eventually be an undoing of the current patent mess?
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Thanks for your stories and comments on Slashdot. This seems like a good time to ask you a question that I think has been on everyone's mind:
If you could ask yourself anything, what would it be?
Thanks.
You have a unique position as a well-known figure in both the Free Software community and the underground rap community; as you are well-known for your involvement in Debian, speeding the corporate adoption of Free Software and protecting the IP of the Free Software community, as well as laying down the phat beats and representin' for the community, I have a few questions to ask of you about these enormous responsibilities.
First, what do you do to try to get your message out to the community? What do you tell the kids who are looking for a positive role model, to show them that it's entirely possible to have legally obtained their bling-bling, and yet still have street cred, even if that street may be Wall Street? Also, have other people in the industries--like ESR or Puff Daddy--accused you of 'selling out', or 'forgetting where you came from'? And did you correctly identify them as playa hatas, who are just jealous of your successful and honest nature?
Don't let them get you down, Bruce; you have shown everyone that it's possible to be an intelligent and responsible white man, and yet still make some mad loot, not give in to the big corporations, (software, recording, or otherwise) score with the ladies (husband *and* father!), and lay down some phat beats in the mean time. You're 100x the role model that Eminem will ever be, and I mean that, from the heart, as one wigga to another.
Unless, of course, Eminem wises up and takes a page or two from your book, and starts researching intellectual property law and free software. In your honor, Bruce--let's all stand up.
Will the real Bruce Perens Please Stand Up
Mr Perens,
Much of the pressure exerted on governments and big business to adopt "Free" Software seems to hinge on the idea that you don't have to pay anyone in order to obtain the software. (The mistaken belief that zero acquisition cost equals no cost at all.)
Do you have any thoughts on what we, the Geek community, can do to educate the public about "Cost of Ownership" without driving them away from Free Software or unduly confusing them about what we mean by "Free" in the first place?
Bruce, As I am sure you are well aware that the United States government has chosen Microsoft as the platform of choice for our Homeland Security. First, do you think this was choice will bad consequences ranging from financial to top secret data being stolen? Second, do you feel that open source software would have been a more responsible choice by our government?
Later,
Phil
If the adoption of Linux is slowed down by the SCO lawsuit in the US do you think it will impact the competitiveness of US companies VS foreign ones.
I think this suit has the serious potential to harm the US economy by preventing US companies from adopting cheaper and better technologies. A the same time that US industries are delaying or scaling back their open source plans Japan, China, India, and most of Europe and South America seem to be speeding ahead. What does this mean for American industry and the economy in the short, medium and long term.
I would love to hear your views.
War is necrophilia.
Certainly many (in fact, most) OSS-savvy IT industry workers I have come across think Apple is merely using open source for a free ride. Certainly Bruce Perens thought so, and Richard Stallman very pubicly rejected Apple's licensing efforts and questioned their intentions. The Free Software Foundation even boycotted the company. These comments have reinforced IT scepticism of Apple Computer and acceptance of Apple technologies in this field remains close to nil. ZDnet's Evan Leibovitch points out many problems with Apple's (lack of) efforts in Open Source's Black Hole, problems which still remain more than 2 years later.
Your question is good because it would be interesting to see if Bruce's opinions on Apple are still the same, and does he now think the company is genuine? Has it given back a sufficient amount or is it paying lip service only?
Of course part of the reason for this is that the seventies and early-eighties were an incredibly creative and productive period for software ideas. But... why has it stopped? The successful open source operating systems - the BSDs, Linux, the Hurd - are all based on UN*X, based on paradigms about how people use and share information which are rigid and hierarchical.
Of course there are open source operating systems based on other ideas, but so far none of them is making any break through. Is there a radically different Open Source operating system that you, personally, are excited by? If not, why not? Have we learned nothing in the last thirty years?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.