Slashdot Mirror
Free Software As Nigerian Scam
djeaux writes "In the November 4 issue of Syllabus, Howard Strauss, manager of technology strategy and outreach at Princeton University, presents 'The FREE, 0% APR, Better Sex, No Effort Diet' in which he scattershoots at open source software. The Nigerian scam is part of his imagery, leading to a great quote: 'While you are installing your free open source software you may want to write Mrs. Ahmed a check. Her $8.5 million will help pay for the real cost of that free software.' Elsewhere, Strauss describes the open source community as 'a smattering of teenagers too young to work at Redmond, hackers, virus creators, and a menagerie of others with whom you will feel great pride in entrusting your IT infrastructure.'" Not everyone at Princeton agrees.
Worse, that -1 Flamebait drivel included this nonsense:
This is the alluring pitch of open source software. We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support, but it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway.
Funny, I've seen varying levels of QC, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support offerings from both open source and commercial software, with an overall slight lead by open source. But that's not the most annoying or perplexing part.
That award goes to "[modifying the source code] was discredited decades ago". WTF? How, by whom, and most importantly why was "modifying source code" discredited? I mean, the whole article is full of completely unsubstantiated nonsense and mudslinging, but this little comment grabbed my attention.
Does anyone know what he's talking about? Some decades-old study that somehow could be interpreted as "discrediting" souce-code mods, perhaps? I don't even have a guess.
Of course, taken to the extreme, that silly idea would mean no program would ever get new features or bug fixes except by being completely re-written from scratch, which would no doubt defeat the purpose in most cases.
What a maroon.
everything in moderation
Congratulations, that was one of the most brilliant pieces of flamebait I've ever seen or read. It had everything:
1) blatant factual inaccuracies:
> We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding
> standards, accountability, version control, and support, but it's FREE > and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something
> that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and
> few people do anyway.
I don't know of a single open-source / free software project that doesn't use version control. In fact, what might easily be the
most popular version control system in the world, CVS, is itself
an open source project.
Coding Standards? True, not every open-source project has written guidelines for that. However, many do ( The Jakarta sub-project
group at the ASF comes to mind, as does the Mozilla project) and
all are subject to the most rigorous coding standard of all... review and inspection by an unlimited number of peers, at any time of day or night, 24 x 7, 365 days a year. Let a snippet of bad code get checked into the repository (see above) for a large open source project with
numerous active committers, and see how long it takes for it to get rolled-back, and the author mercilessly flamed.
Quality Control? Maybe you've heard the expression "all bugs are shallow, given enough eyeballs?" Open Source by it's very nature has
the ultimate form of quality control... and unlike closed source
proprietary software, the end user generally has relatively easy
access to the engineers working on the code, to report defects,
whether it be via Bugzilla, Sourceforge, e-mail, newsgroups or
what have you.
Support? JBoss Corp. provides support for the JBoss application server,
Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake and many others provide supported distributions of Linux, and Mozilla.org provides support for Mozilla. And that's just
paid support I'm referring to. Never mind the aforementioned channels of e-mail, newsgroups, forums, etc., for interacting directly with the authors (and fellow users) of the code.
As for modifying code being dangerous... that's just ignorant. Cutting towards yourself with a sharp knife is dangerous... crossing a busy highway without looking is dangerous... modifying source code is about as NON dangerous an activity as you could dream up.
2) unwarranted and inaccurate personal attacks
> These folks are some of the same great people
> who are supposed to be working for you anyway,
> plus a smattering of teenagers too young to work
> at Redmond, hackers, virus creators, and a
> menagerie of others with whom you will feel
> great pride in entrusting your IT
> infrastructure.
Wow, you just managed to insult the entire open source community in one
drop of the hat... a community which happens to include many professional software engineers, working for respected firms such as IBM, Red Hat, SGI, Novell, Mandrakesoft, Sun Microsystems, etc.
I suppose you believe Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox to be "others with whom you will feel great pride in entrusting your IT infrastructure," eh?
Oh, and you make look around the Princeton campus sometime... I'm pretty sure you'll find quite a number of members of the open source community there, both students and faculty / staff members.
3) red herrings and unrelated rambling galore...
no quote necessary... this bullet basically summarizes your entire article.
In short, you sir, are either a flaming idiot, or the first Slashdot troll to get hired by Princeton and allowed to publish obvious flamebait in Syllabus. If this was an intentional troll, I must say, it was a masterful one. If you actually meant any of that drivel however, I would suggest you leave the IT industry and take up something you are competent at.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
But free software is the domain of hackers - hackers came up with the concept in the first place. Incidentally, wasn't there a survey a while back showing that most hackers contributing to free software are professionals in their 40s? While they are certainly tinkerers, they are hardly students.
sic transit gloria mundi
> a smattering of teenagers too young to work at Redmond,
Nope. I hit the big 50 in a couple of years. Still have a punch card hanging in my office as a reminder of "the old days".
> hackers,
No again. The company I work for makes network security software.
> virus creators,
Nope. See above.
> and a menagerie of others with whom you will feel great pride in entrusting your IT infrastructure.
Gee, the Air Force let me write software to target ICBMs and build radar systems, the Navy let me build radar system, for the Army it was logistics and air defense command and control software, I've also written software for maintaining civilian airliners and I now work for a company that makes really good money selling the network monitoring software I help create. Menagerie is a funny word to use to describe a group of people with this kind of credentials, but, maybe he was at a loss for words.
Are we sure Laura DiDio didn't just take on another pseudonym?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Since the "at" link in the story is to a former version of my homepage (~ferguson is my dad), I think I can comment on this.
I don't know WHERE this guy is coming from, unless its satire, in which case, it is poorly executed. Linux is quite prevalent on campus. In fact, OIT (central campus network folks) had to drop support for the public Irix cluster because of support costs, while the public Linux and Solaris clusters are chugging along just fine.
Yes, students have been using it on campus forever, but the scientists and engineers like it quite a bit too. A 1999 report by a Faculty Sub-Committee writes, "Linux is emerging as a widely-used version of Unix. At this time there are over 600 Linux systems registered at Princeton, and the number is growing rapidly. One of the advantages of Linux is that it makes it possible to take advantage of the economies of Intel-based computing and a full-featured operating system with a complete set of high quality software tools available gratis. We recommend that consideration be given to expanding the university DeSC program to include the Linux operating system as an option." [DeSC is the Desktop Systems Council, which oversees official university desktop computers.] So Slashdot crowd, remember who makes the real decisions at a private university: the tenured faculty, end of story. (NB, how many slashdot stores have been posted about Prof. Felton and his group? They do plenty of work with OSS.)
OIT has included Linux-specific information for a couple years now in its knowledgebase, complete with setup information, network configuration & printing, mounting the campus samba servers, backing up to the central Tivoli servers, etc. etc. They've also held seminars touting the benefits of OSS for departments; I know, because I've been to them.
So Linux isn't in trouble at Princeton. Guess this oddball found a pulpit from which to buck the herd.
The above posting is somewhat more insightful that it appears at first glance. Consider this: I have yet to attend or visit an institution where the CS/EE departments did not have their own computing services departments.
I can quite specifically point to CRL at UIUC and CTS at Wash U. Both are "wholly owned subsidiaries" of their respective CS departments (although CTS provides support for other deparments...for a price). And both are far more competant than any of the other IT staffs at their institutions.
Now, why is this interesting? Think--CS and EE departments make much heavier use of Unix (especially free Unix) than other departments. Their respective IT departments manage to keep these abused and Unix-heavy infrastructures up and running far more effectively with far less fuss than the underutilized and MS-heavy infrastructures of other departments (actually, to be fair, the Olin B-School does have a better-than-average IT support staff. Nowhere near as good as CRL or CTS, but better than average. Something to do with hiring a bunch of employees with a 25% turnover rate).
Let's summarize the interesting facts:
- CS and EE departments make punishing use of their computing resources.
- CS and EE departments tend to be Unix-centric, especially Linux and BSD (although HP and Sun do have a strong yet diminishing presence).
- As a result, CS and EE departments tend to have thier own, separate facilities.
- As a result, CS and EE departments cannot take advantages of the enormous economies of scale inheirent in large-scale administration (it should be roughly as easy to admin 1000 machines as 100 or 10000).
- Despite this, CS and EE departments tend to enjoy fairly reliable, trouble free computing.
- In contrast, other departments suffer from poor-performing, unreliable computing.
So, even though they have all of the disadvantages (at least as Mr. Strauss would list them), CS/EE departments get the better end of the computing deal.If this is computing with no QC, no support, and no accountability, someone needs to sue those bastards pushing 6-sigma for screwing everybody else over.
Amazing, something that actually made me de-lurk on Slashdot...
Here is my letter to this guy:
Sir:
I am a graduate student in the Princeton University Physics Department. I came across your article regarding open source software on Syllabus Magazine's web site, in which you do a grave disservice to Princeton University's reputation of technical excellence. Allow me to elaborate.
You say, with a tad of sarcasm:
"These folks [open source software developers] are some of the same great people who are supposed to be working for you anyway, plus a smattering of teenagers too young to work at Redmond, hackers, virus creators, and a menagerie of others with whom you will feel great pride in entrusting your IT infrastructure."
I am interested, then, in how you feel about the Princeton University web servers at www.princeton.edu running Apache, the most well-known open source web server. Apparently [1], Apache has more than 2/3 of the web server market share on the Internet, so someone must trust these people. Of course, the fact that source code is available for open source projects may have something to do with this trust. By the way, how many open source viruses have you seen? (Microsoft Word macros don't count.)
[1] http://www.netcraft.com/
You say:
"We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support, but it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway."
Really? Who discredited the ability to modify source code? Did I miss a Congressional report or something? I apologize for calling you dead wrong, but in fact the Linux kernel [2], one of the most successful open source projects in existence, has been continually updated and improved since its first release in 1991, all by people with an interest in changing source code. These "dangerous" modifications have strangely made Linux and its BSD Unix cousins more stable than any release of Windows. The open source software development process is self-regulating: stable, good software survives, while low-quality efforts are ignored and drop from the face of the Internet. It is too bad that mediocre commercial software does not do the same, since it is too well-supported by people who will not consider using anything they are not required to pay for.
[2] http://www.kernel.org/
You say:
"We either pay commercial software developers, pay to build it ourselves, or pay the even higher price to manage and maintain FREE open source software."
I don't suppose you are aware of the existence of companies who provide support for open source software. Believe it or not, it is possible to buy a support contract from most major Linux distributors, e.g., [3]. It is even possible to ask (politely) for FREE support on open source message boards, such as [4], where you will usually get far more helpful responses than the standard Microsoft "Have you tried rebooting? Reinstalling?".
[3] http://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/
You say:
"Another way to get free software is to have students develop our critical systems," and "You can also get free software developed by having your users develop it for you."
These are ridiculous straw man arguments. No sane system administrator would tell his/her students or users to develop their own softwa
- Kevin B. McCarty
I quote: "We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support, but it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway."
Doesn't really require a comment. Discredits the author, just shows that he hasn't got a clue. This would not matter, would this person not be in the position he is. That level of incompetence is shocking.
I am a medical doctor with a past history as software engineer. I run a paperless clinic (Dorrigo Medical Centre). There may be situations where patient's lifes depend on what our software does or doesn't do, not just the flawless running of a university department. To us and our patients, robustness and reliability of software is crucial.
Yet we use free software to this purpose, almost to exclusion. Why? Trust. Peer review. Accountability. All issues not covered by shrink wrap software with general disclaimers, where the end user is disempowered to the degree of a mere slave.
We never would pur our patients at risk by using software of a company with such abysmal reputation regarding stability, reliability and security such as Microsoft. We don't trust free software either right our of the box for that matter - but here at least we can investigate and verify, or pay competent people to do it for us.
Shame on this man and his unsubstantiated statements. Reality check strongly recommended (like what software is keeping the Internet alive and working, and what software is running some of the worlds most powerful and expensive computers liek Blue Gene)
Dr Horst Herb, MD
Principal, Dorrigo Medical Centre, Australia
Management Committee Member, General Practice Computing Group