Slashdot Mirror
Linux Corporate Influence: Boon or Bane?
Mark Tobenkin writes "Are corporations exploiting the Open Source community? The Linux Public Broadcasting Network has video interviews with Ian Murdock (of Progeny and Debian fame), Martin Roesch (author of Snort), Jeremey White (CEO of CodeWeavers), Bradley Kuhn (FSF), Mike Balma (Linux Business Strategist for HP) and others on the evolving OSS business models. The interviews center around whether integration with proprietary products endangers the Open Source effort or increases consumers' freedom to choose."
Isn't that the right analogy?
Language lets people communicate ideas. The fact that a group of people may choose to communicate in private doesn't deter you and I from communicating.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Corporations have specific needs. If OSS can fill that need, then they will try to use it. As long as the software's license is not violated then I don't see the problem. If you think this is a problem, change your license to something more restrictive.
I find this interesting in that many of you want to see OSS flourish, compete with major software houses (like Microsoft), and be used by as many people as possible. Now that this is starting to happen, will you claim that the spirit of OSS is being violated by corporations and resist its growth?
> If not, then why worry?
Because a larger userbase translates into greater driver support on part of the hardware manufacturers, which would take a huge burden off the OSS community and allow developers to focus on creating useful applications.
The unofficial
As long as people understand that they can get the same product for free with a little more effort put into setup, any "exploitation" is acceptable.
That said, the problem has always been getting name recognition without advertising or other corporate-type actions.
The numbers are already there in the server environment, the juiciest, most rewarding targets available. Still waiting for the deluge.
Do you want to be the virus target by virtue of numbers?
:)
The answer is most definitely YES!
If Linux was the de facto virus target (as Windows currently is), then what you'd see is an increased scrutiny in the code, more patches, and an overall better system. What I'm trying to get at here is that increased visibility basically equates to increased quality.
Or, "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" --> the more we're attacked, the better our systems become.
Bring it on!
Exactly. That is why I use my PowerBook. I enjoy using Dreamweaver (code + preview), and Flash.
Even though I do like to use the Gimp more then Photoshop, I bet a handful more then I would rather
do the opposite.--Just think Adobe and Macromedia, how much market share you would gain from
just porting already existing code...
Get Adobe and Macromedia to port to Linux and I think you'll see a major increase in usage
I don't necessarily think that will help. I pointed out to our company's graphics/design girl that PhotoShop runs under Linux quite nicely using the latest version of CrossOver Office last week. However, she likes her Windows and sees little reason to switch. She's gotten used to the way things work under Windows and has yet to see the smoking gun that will make her switch.
And on the point of pointing the apps to Linux, I think I'd rather see them at least contribute money or time to the Wine/CrossOver project to improve stability of apps like PhotoShop.
-dr
It is really amusing how Sun goes on to spread FUD about Linux in enterprise in light of the SCO lawsuit, yet they go on to employ Linux related solutions whenever it cuts the operating costs and overhead. Mad Hatter is a good example of this. Sun is stabbing Linux in a back when releasing press releases by pushing their queer Solaris/Unix in news reports how Linux might be dangerious in terms of IP infringment, yet you see them deploy Gnome and praise it for own gain.
and lets not forget, Linux is Unix, by Sun.
ie "Free as in (free) speech" or "Free as in (freedom of) speech".
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I often wonder if corporations basing their whole infrastructure off of linux (and other free software) is really fair to the open source community. Corporations who have embraced open software (linux specifically) are really saving themselves a lot of money. It'd be nice of those coporations would kick back some of their savings into supporting open source projects and initiatives.
On the other hand, without wide adoption, the rate at which Linux has developed probably wouldn't be any where near what it currently is. The best way to find bugs and feature requests is to get as many people as possible banging on a piece of software until it fails (or seems deficient in one area or another). So maybe the exposure, feature enhancements and bugs found are the proper 'payment' I spoke of.
Commercial programs make for choices. It provides an option instead of "Go write it yourself". Maybe GIMP doesn't do it for you and you need the full Adobe Photoshop. And if you do, you need to go with one of the OSs where Photoshop exists, yes?
It's not like they would be a threat to the free programs - things the mass market wants or needs gets written, it's the more advanced or obscure stuff you get in commercial apps. Not to mention many people have time "invested" in specific apps that they would like to keep.
There's a considerable number of programs for which there are a market, and people are willing to part with the cash, but there's none or too few OSS developers. Sure, a single company could do a "work for hire", but there's no mass-market equivalent. You don't see thousands or even millions of people pitching in a couple dollars to write an OSS piece of software, but the same people would consider paying for a commercial app.
I think commercial applications and OSS programs push eachother forward. The commercial programs need to be better than the free if they want to get any money for it, while the OSS programs see where they are still lacking and could catch up. Not that OSS software can't be innovative itself, but there's no doubt that commercial applications have a great pressure to sell upgrades, while an OSS project can basicly declare itself more or less "done" and just focus on perfecting that.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
= We work, you profit
Ultimately, businesses MUST be able to succeed with Open Source Software for Open Source Software to become truly successful.
You release your code under the GPL, and if a company decides to exploit it in a way that doesn't violate the GPL but pisses you off, then too bad. Suck it up. Deal with it. Either suffer, or write under a different license.
This is exactly the same question that keeps coming up when people look at unpleasant military organisations using open/free code, and has the same answer. If you don't like it, don't release it to them.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Windows has been the de facto virus target, but that doesn't seem to have increased code quality...
I think a paranoid requirement for security, at the cost of hardware support and "cool features", makes for the best security. Look at OpenBSD. It doesn't have SMP support, or many of the other features of FreeBSD. What it does have is a system in which every incoming line of code is reviewed for security implications, one of the most secure on this planet.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Like "Free software", beer may cost money to obtain, or it may be provided gratis. But people with beer have certain inalienable rights. They may drink it, or they may analyse it, or even pour it down the toilet. They can give it away to friends, reverse engineer it and produce their own, or mix it with a beef stew to make a steak & ale pie. At the end of the day, it's their choice how to use their own beer.
Speech, on the other hand, never costs a penny. But it usually, even in the US, is restricted. You can't use speech to defame, for example, or reveal state secrets. You can't use speech to duplicate a copyrighted work, to perform it, for example. Under many local ordinances, even in the US, "Community values" codes can result in some forms of lewd speech being punished with fines. People can and do regularly lose their jobs due to the exercise of speech.
So, remember kids, free software is free as in beer, not as in speech!
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Not as much greater driver sport as you think. Hardware manufacturers will only write drivers for the latest cards (the ones that they are still selling) for any operating system. It would still be up to the OSS community to provide support for every piece of hardware the manufacturers are no longer making money off of. This is one of the most annoying things about windows -- by and large it requires new drivers for each major release, but hardware manufactures have zero incentive to rewrite the drivers for their old hardware. As a result, you're virtually forced to buy new hardware and peripherals to run the latest version of Windows!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Without having listened to the interviews (yeah, yeah, so I didn't RTFA, or LTTFI in this case, so sue me), I'm going to respond to what comment was posted to the ./ front page about them. Here goes.
What's the point of this? Is corporate influence good or bad for Linux? What? From whose perspective are you asking?
I really don't think that the question itself is worth asking. You can't boil a complex set of technologies and interactions down to a simple "it's great!" or "it sucks!".
Based on the list of people interviewed, I'd imagine that more than just the Linux kernel is being addressed -- GNU, distros, free software in general.
Is modifying it all to work with new systems a good thing in general? I'd say yes, as it's always nice to have interested people making sure that code is truly portable. Note that I'm not saying, "more users mean more bugs found!", but that if a company wants to spend time and money fixing portability and compatibility issues, then I don't see how that's a bad thing.
Anyone contributing to a project has a reason for doing so. This is true whether they're paid for it or not -- either they're working to meet their own needs, or the needs of someone else. Code gets implemented for a reason, and I think that saying "Is corporate involvement in Linux a good thing?" is similar to asking "Was DJ Delorie's port of GCC to DOC a good thing?"
Obviously, if someone spends resources making free software into something that is useful to them, then it could be seen as having been a "good thing" for them.
Are corporations exploiting the OSS community? I don't know. Define "exploit". I'd imagine that for every company "exploiting" OSS by using it without contributing there are 1000 people who downloaded and installed OSS without ever having contributed anything back.
Maybe there's something Zen-like to my point of view on the topic. Is widespread adoption of GNU/Linux on the desktop a good thing? Is widespread adoption of computers in general a good thing? Is it better for Linux to improve, or for Microsoft to pull their heads a little further out of their asses with regards to quality control? These are questions you can't answer without context. Good for whom? For the desktop user? For me? For you? For your employer? Your grandmother? Residents of Uganda?
Until context is provided, I suppose the answer to the question, "Boon or Bane?" is simply, mu.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Every summer I give Linux another shot as my desktop OS. Time and time again I go back to Windows. Why? It's less of a hassle. /me shrugs
Dependencies, incompatabilities, nightmares... There needs to be a better way to unite the Linux community to make a superior product. Until then, Windows will remain on top for the desktop OS. But once you do that, legal issues and crap will occur...
_________ Help me get a PSP!
Nobody is forced to write open source code. The developers are either people who write something voluntarily on their own initiative, or are doing it for hire for some other person or company,
The people who do it on their own initiative obviously are getting some benefit, or they wouldn't expend the effort. The people doing it for hire are being reimbused for it by those who hired them.
The beauty of open source software is that its creators are not the only ones who benefit from their efforts. Rather, everyone of us who use their products are enriched. Neither the developers, the distributors or the end users are harmed by the software development. Everybody involved is better off.
If you view people using code released under an open source license as "exploiting the developers", you are welcome to use the traditional proprietary licensing schemes for your code. That's called freedom of choice.
You simply have no idea about the level of cluelessness amongst photographers with regards to computers.
But is that really the point? Designers and prepress folks more often than not are true geeks - or at least hire true geeks to tend their equipment. And it really matters when you're working on a deadline if your system crashes - this can be more important than raw speed when it doesn't, if crashing is a factor. Now that photographers are going digital, some of them are using Photoshop, but that's not the core user base. It's not the photographers who do the final Photoshop prep of their images for publication. Photographers are not just "not the only users," they're basically insignificant users. No offense.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I don't see any problems with corporate influence on Linux in general. The key issue, however, is to be smart and careful about licenses and to keep the agendas and strategies of the corporate contributors in mind. Some companies are trying to push software with proprietary licenses onto free software platforms, other companies pick free software licenses that are not in the best interests of free software.
Sun, for example, is making a big push for Sun Java-derived implementations on Linux, but large parts of that platform are only available as proprietary software from Sun. Making free software dependent on a proprietary implementation is probably not a good idea.
Qt is another example. It actually ships under the GPL, which is a free software license. But in the case of handhelds, Troll Tech's business interests have caused them to adopt a platform that excludes other toolkits from the same platform: they basically want the commercial Linux PDA market to themselves. Even on the desktop, FSF-endorsed projects like Gtk+ are covered by licenses like the LGPL because free software proponents believe that sometimes a more lenient license than the GPL is actually better for achieving the long term goals of the free software movement.
Even when corporate support of open source comes with no strings attached, it may sometimes still not be all that good. IBM has released a lot of software in open source form, software like LVM and JFS. For IBM that's a good deal because it lets them move their AIX customers to Linux. But LVM was rejected by Linux for inclusion into the Linux kernel, and ReiserFS and ext3 are better alternatives to JFS and far more widely used; a lot of corporate contributions just add redundant bulk. And JFS has become the object of SCO legal claims. While those are probably bogus, it shows another way in which accepting corporate contributions too indiscriminately could be a problem.
So, overall, I think corporations have a lot to contribute. But you always have to keep in mind that, even though they may be talking the talk, their interests are not aligned with the goals of the free software movement, or even the goals of the open source software movement.
We want exploitation by companies! The more people that use our software the better off we will be!
Aha, well.. my summary of the Linux v. BSD situation is:
Just about every Linux distro is superior to FreeBSD in every respect.
OpenBSD is awesome for secure servers.
NetBSD is good for portability.
The unofficial
Improvements to the Windows codebase as a result of emerging exploits is blocked by one simple fact. Microsoft doesn't get paid for fixing defects. They get paid for selling a new copy with "new" features.
There is really an enormous significance to the difference in development models here. Open source is driven by need for functionality, whereas business is driven by profit.
Maintence is a business expense, and security fixes are maintenence. Until a company such as Microsoft can figure out how to be paid reliably for maintenance, you truly aren't going to see much of an attitude change.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Actually I happen to like features. The point I was making is that Linux, with a large user base, will turn into Windows. Then the community will move to some other brand new OS because they like the benefits of what happens when it's got its little niche audience.
Only if they close the source and/or remove the ability to modify and distribute distributions. Otherwise you will always be free to strip out features you don't want. What you say? "I am not a programmer?" That's alright, Jack because someone is and will be just as annoyed as you that Linux is bloated, guaranteed. Those people will provide either the distro stripped down or instructions to make your installation go that route.
This is why we have Slackware, debian, the source based distros, et al. Someone did not like the way other distros worked and made their own and maintained it with these design goals in mind. And if you don't like it, you can mke your own. There are thousands of distros to choose from if you don't feel like doing that, or LFS if you want to learn how.
"The interviews center around whether integration with proprietary products endangers the Open Source effort or increases consumers' freedom to choose."
Integration with proprietary products is largely a corporate question --- how much proprietary software are you running on your Linux box at home? In the corporate arena where some proprietary stuff exists the issue is not about. Corporations rightfully don't give a rat's behind about giving employees choice. That's a lock-down environment. Choice comes into play in the larger scale interoperability --- can one half of the organization work with the other half.... that comes down to protocols. If the corporatization of open source software enhances protocol compliance then great.
The worst thing corporatization can do is cause a fork -- like any other OS developer. If their fork wins because it's has bigger backing so be it. If that happens because it scratches a corporate itch so be it. If you don't like the direction a project is going then fork.
"The point I was making is that Linux, with a large user base, will turn into Windows"
;) No matter how many users there is still no motivation for early release, patches still get reviewed. It's the development model and the collective brains of the community in design that makes open source software so stable.. not lack of users.
Just out of curiousity how large does the user base become before it turns into windows? Linux currently has millions of deploymentss. 2% of the worldwide desktop market may seem small compared to windows... but it hardly is small when you consider how many desktops that actually is.
I seriously doubt linux will ever turn into windows
Wikileaks, no DNS