Slashdot Mirror
The Riches of Open Source
Daniel Dvorkin writes "This BusinessWeek article argues convincingly that Linus Torvalds has more resources at his disposal than Bill Gates. Not only is it a nice overview of Why Open Source Really Matters pitched to a non-technical audience, but it makes a solid argument in favor of OSS in general and Linux in particular, from a solidly capitalist perspective."
Linus Torvalds is not the only one with more resources because of the open source community. Everyone, including Bill Gates, has more resources at their disposal, because of the open source community. We have improved knowledge on all fronts, due to the hobbying of business, as seen from the Open Source community. Hobbies that become replacements for standards, cause positive growth, and better solutions. I think it's because of the love and passion that everyone puts into their hobbies, in hope that they can get somewhere other folks haven't been before. It's like a kind of space exploration, but with the benefit that you can do it in your own basement or home office, den, on a plane or anywhere for that matter. PHP is a great example of how good application of Open Source can make for a much easier and better tool than other, less loved products like ASP.
:)
How many people love ASP? I'm guessing not as many as those who really do love PHP or Perl.
You see that because we can all work together to make our products better, the global knowledge is shared and improved upon. Years ago, way before computers, we all had a similar thing to open source. It was called learning and we all did it together. Scholars spent their lives enriching the world with their findings, to better humanity.
Open source is in this same spirit, for mutual benefit based on recognition of participation, not branding, per se. Microsoft spends millions on branding, on marketing, packaging and distrobution. They could easily make loads more money if they focused instead on a model closer to the Open Source model. Who knows, maybe they are counting on it in the future, but likely they are not. Likely Microsoft is going to keep selling us the same regurgitated products they do every year, with new packaging and more "updates". I for one, will keep supporting Open Office.
I'm sure that Linus has more friends than Bill Gates anyway.
He has a world of developers. Bill has a company of developers.
Bill Gates has to pay people to work for him. Linus does not. Advantage: Linus.
but it makes a solid argument in favor of OSS in general and Linux in particular, from a solidly capitalist perspective."
Crap, that means Business Week will be sued by SCO as that goes against what the McBride & Sontag boys have been saying.
Trolling is a art,
Boy, after reading this, I think linux users everywhere should all join hands and sing like we're at a gay roller disco! Yah Linux! We don't need money, we can live on love, and that's the greatest power in the universe! It's better than rainbows and unicorns and unicorns flying over rainbows, and unicorns that crap out rainbow color unicorn shit oh it's just the best ever! Yah Linux!!!
Said the Anonymous Coward.
It's a commonly repeated manta that you can't understand something until you have broken it. The BusinessWeek article suggests that frequently being able to apply this principle to Linux is what moves it forwards.
I disagree. On that basis Outlook Express would be the best e-mail client on the planet. Hell, the thing's been broken for over a decade now.
Beep beep.
The open source community is, according to the article, "a vast flock of very creative, un-sheeplike sheep".
;-)
I have little to add to that... it's just a great line. Beware of getting fleeced by SCO.
Vanya's Law: "In any culture without irony, fart jokes will be the highest form of humor."
Finally someone ther has enough sense and not just a MBA degree.
Seriously if common sense would prevail in IT industry over marketing hype and FUD, ...Oh the possibilities.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
But there is a huge difference.
Linus can ASK the world to do something, but if they don't like the way he's thinking, they won't do it. Linus controls the world as long as the world likes the orders. So in a sense he's just a way to focus the desires of the majority of developers.
Gates on the other hand can ORDER everyone in his employ to jump around and shout "I'm a little idiot!" and they'll have to do it wether they like it or not. Thats a huge difference. Gates has the world as his playground.
Google Toolbar is SPYWARE!
How can people say BSD [freebsd.org] is dying when it has a mascot [freebsd.org] like this?!
I just can't help but think of how that mascot coochie is not gonna be minty fresh after a day of being suffocated in that plastic outfit.
Sick, I know, but practical.
Welcome our new resource-rich overlord.
...is that open source software, assuming it can weather legal and business challenges (**cough**SCO?**cough**), will always have an army of part time coders and testers that will work out holes, plug leaks and innovate products. However, I think the challenge for open source is that often times several different groups are writing competing code for competing projects will little consideration of the massive duplication (witness many distributions of Linux, many of which are functionally identical) in efforts. The successful projects in the open source world are projects that can agree on standards, organize factions of programmers, and distribute to a wide audience.
It's still not too late.. I bet that if Linus started asking for donations, he'd get a lot of money very quickly.
Probably something to do with the flash plugins or some such nonesense.
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
The article mentions Linux all the time, and Linus, but it wouldn't be usable as an entirely free operating system without the free software from GNU.
:-)
Now, let the flaming and zealot-naming begin, but what I'm saying is just true.
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
It's SCO All The Way, Dung Brains
love,
Darl
Interesting article (yes, I read it), but one thing I don't understand. The author states early on that "Both men must find ways to motivate people to work together so knowledge can spread and have maximum impact on improving software quality."
I don't see Linus doing that kind of thing. Does he, personally, motivate a damn thing? It's not like I studied the history of this "movement", but didn't he basically just toss the infant OS out there for whomever to use in whatever way?
Maybe I'm reading too much into it...
Capitalism was the Great Satan at Slashdot, or something like that. Right up there with Microsoft, in fact.
The community of Linux users and developers is held together by pride and the thrill of working toward a common goal of a universal (...) alternative to Windows Hmm... I thought that a lot of people were contributing to Linux simply because they like the idea of an open source OS, and believe that it is the best way to produce software... irrespective of wethere or not it's going to be an "alternative" to windows. Not everybody who uses/contributes to Linux does so out of a burning desire to compete with windows.
Being disorganized can actually leverage that knowledge more effectively than a command-and-control hierarchy. ... you would assume we were talking about terrorists.
I can't wait until the GPL is held in that politically charged light.
T.
This space for rent.
Actually, it means Outlook Express would be the best understood e-mail client on the planet. It still requires someone who cares enough to fix it.
Developers: We can use your help.
Can anyone else actually log in?
linus 1 gates 0
Did anyone else picture Linus sitting in conference room with all the FSF hitmen? Saying "Bring me that driver, I shall eat his liver with some farva beans and nice chianti."
One example. Microsoft notepad. Ever try really use that for things ? Word wrapping INSERTS CARRIAGE RETURNS instead of making it simply looked wrapped like any other editor I have ever used. Change window shape -> gets messed up. Microsoft isnt that incompetent. Its by design. I BET this was to get people to use word .doc files for even the simplest things to lock people into word. Most people wont go search for another text editor. That is what the profit motive got us there.
If this is true then one must wonder why Linus doesn't utilize more of these available resources. Why does he instead have a relatively small group of hackers working on only a kernel? Why, with all his resources, is he not developing, embracing and extending a plethora of other operating system components and applications?
The fact is that while open source does offer the potential of having a very vast number of developers owrking on a project or multiple projects, the reality is that few developers actually participate. Combine this with the fact that they are driven to participate based on their interest or itch and we end up with a fine kernel, a few great apps and an abundance of mp3 players.
The potential is there for Linus to have more resources than Bill Gates but, the reality is that Linus has no where near the resources of Bill Gates.
The altruism of open source is very noble. What will put the fire in the belly of Linux's white knights if they win their crusade and Microsoft does crumble?
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Our PC GOD Torvalds, which art in Transmeta^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSDL
Hallowed be thy skillz
Thy kernel comes, in the US and all the earth
Give us this day our daily updates.
And forgive us our holes, as we apply thine patch.
And lead us not into closed source, but deliver us from Microsoft.
For thine is the kernel, the skillz, and the leetness for ever and ever. Amen.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
This line reminded me of the whole Smith/Neo thing, and about the Architect and the whole balancing the equation stuff. Maybe Linux was created to balance the monopoly of Windows? But if so, what happens if Windows dies? Will developers lost their goal since their main target is dead, or will Linux continue to be stronger?
Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
ah yes, but some find that appealing. no accounting for taste.
Way back when I was a lad there was a nice candy store in town. The owner, Mr. Glucose, would have one day a year in which he would allow all the town children to get candy for free.
One year on Free Candy Day two teenagers were standing outside the front of the store. "That's Darl McBride and Chris Sontag," my friend whispered to me, "they're a couple of junior high bullies!" We tried to enter the store when the two bullies moved in front of me. "Hey kid," snarled McBride, "this is our candy store. If you want in you have to pay me a dime." I protested "But.. but.. Mr. Glucose owns the candy store!" Sontag laughed. "Hey punk, my mom was making candy at home for years. That means we own the candy in the store if they use sugar in it like my mom."
Upon hearing this exchange, Mr. Glucose came out of the store waving a bat and proceeded to beat the two bullies to pulp.
~ The End ~
- Access to documentation of more different hardware
- Third party driver developers with knowledge of each and every piece of hardware, sometimes even people who participated in development of said hardware.
- Third party software developers.
- A wide range of manufactors who more or less willingly test Windows on their own hardware products and install Windows on the computers before shipping to the customers.
Imagine how much quicker Linux 2.6 would mature if hardware manufactors considered it important that their hardware would work with 2.6.0 from day one, and thus actually started testing it already with 2.6.0-test1.Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Linus also has more ability to actually use his resources. He's not spending time with folks like Warren Buffet playing bridge-he's focused on technical issues. Linus may have a few "yes men" around distorting his perception, but nothing like Bill Gates.
The kind of extreme wealth Bill Gates has also brings some serious hassles. Gates can't travel anyplace without security measures--and even with those security measures, a suicide bomber in a station wagon full of fertilizer and diesel fuel could take him out at any time. Anyone that has to think about this sort of stuff-or hire people to think about this sort of stuff has a problem.
Gates, to his credit, at least seems to have some old friends(some prominent Silicon Valley executives don't). Still, I honestly suspect that if money were suddenly worthless (say due to a major economic collapse or EMP of the financial system), Linus would be in a much stronger position than Gates.
Though not necessarily intentionally.
Like Taoist philosophy.. a great leader leads without leading, a great ruler rules without ruling...
Linus does not necessarily view himself as a manager or leader, but he IS ONE, regardless, and a very highly successful one at that.
The OSS movement focuses on Linus as a centerpiece, a leader, whether he wants them to or not... When Linus speaks, people listen.. and very few actually disagree with him, at least openly.
Anti-Linux peple will say "Oh, you have this one guy who runs the kernel like a tyrant.. what if what he does doesn't match up with what big business wants?".. well, he's been doing alright for a decade, regardless of what his motives are, you can't argue that.
that's more than we can say for a great many guys with MBAs running billion dollar companies.
Linus coordinates more people in a really loose environment, and produces a heck of a product... go figure.
Yes, I realize it's not all his grand plan, but he is the focal point, the leader.
You're sort of correct. Gates must find ways to motivate people because he needs to find the best possible employees and keep them happy enough to stay. Torvalds doesn't need to do much motivation because his "staff" is there voluntarily because of passion. Most people working on Linux are there simply because they enjoy it, not because they need to work on this software to put food on their table.
Gates also has the problem of the corporate environment, where many developers feel trapped. So he must foster an environment where his people are as happy as possible. Linux is the opposite, where people are only there because it makes them happy.
Developers: We can use your help.
From the article: On the surface, Linus vs. Bill seems to be the ultimate David vs. Goliath contest.
I'm pretty sure that, by definition, the ultimate David vs. Goliath contest was in fact: David vs. Goliath.
Otherwise they'd be called "Linus vs. Bill" contests now wouldn't they?
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
Reading that article kinda reminded me of the episode with Jay Sherman and McBain: Jay: "How do you sleep at night?" McBain: "On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies."
Then I put on a suit, because you can get away with anything if you're wearing a suit. Suits lie.
I think that Linus would rather have the money to be honest. Nevertheless I don't think the article is completely correct in showcasing the Linux vs Bill super smackdown.
Money vs Altruism
----------------
While having the 'community' of open sourcers behind him is certainly exceedingly important, the open source community is fractured across a variety of fronts, frequently cannot integrate (merge those fronts against a common foe), and lacks a true core focus comitted to solving specific problems. When it does do these things, it does so slowly and without focus. One can blame Microsoft for a wide variety of things, but they can repurpose the company on a dime to release a brand new product (note I didn't say original) within a years time and make it acceptable and commercially viable.
The Linux community - particularly the open source community has simply not the structure and organization to do this.
Geek Fervor
------------
The author talks about how there is a cause to create an alternative to Windows. That's fine - but at the same time, it cost most - lots and lots of money, lots and lots of marketing to make people switch. The one thing that really helps open source sometimes is that the alternatives are of such crap quality that people will endure the lack of support and documentation of an open source product just to get something of good reliability (something the commercial vendors just lack these days).
Creative Chaos
-------------
Chaos is a good thing. Good things can come from random brainstorming - however many times a good idea can simply be neglected in an open source environment where it would have thrived in a commercial environment. There's something to be said for having the time, energy, and resources to actually take an idea that sounds great but would take enormous resources and focussed manpower to pull off.
So while I think its great that open source can do some serious damage to the monopoly of Microsoft and push us forward - I would be quick to note that it isn't really the open source community that's making the types of advances that we really need with respect to getting people to USE the fruit of our labors. Sun, IBM, RedHat, etc. are utilizing the greatness of open source to actually make a difference to the average consumer. And after all - isn't that the point?
That if Microsoft threw open the windows source and allowed the mass public to improve it, it would win over linux due to the combination of Money and Brainpower -- Whereas Linux at the moment has more brainpower. Why does MS not realise this? It is a LOT easier for Microsoft to get more brainpower, than it is for Linux to get more money.
Disturbing to say the least.
C17H21NO4
Talking to students at university and meeting folks in technology in general, I've really started to notice a braindrain away from Microsoft products. I'm really not trying to flamebait, but it seems that people who are really into computer science and doing innovative things with computers are staying away from Microsoft products in droves.
.NET developers and those who were not (usually Java guys). The personality difference was startling. Has anyone else ever had to compare MS and non-MS people side by side? I'm serious, the non MS people seemed more creative, inventive and - well - smart. Meanwhile the MS .NET people seemed more like, I hate to say this,managers? If you are in a corporate environment and need to do everything the MS way - the whole "managerial" vibe is a positive trait. You need someone to impliment MS solutions, not create solutions. But the huge side-effect IMHO is that all the smart people doing cool stuff are running as fast as they can away from MS.
I also mention this because we were looking at hiring Jr. developers and kept observing a incredibly different mindset between those who were
I think this impacts MS future big-time. Has anyone else had this experience or read an article about this?
-_-
By a factor of seven!
(This pointless comment brought to you by my need to goof off)
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Remember, Bill Gates has the resources of the open source and free software communities open for him too. Remember kerberos in 2000?
If what the article claimed is true, then communism whould have triumphed over capitalism. Since I witnessed firsthand how communism failed, I wouldn't be so sure about the future of OSS. For starter, whenever anything is truly successful, no matter what its original intentions were, money and power will sure to come to join and then dominate the party. Just see how happy the slashdotters became when IBM threw its weight behind Linux. People will always be corruped by money and power, geeks included.
Although I wish this was true (since I think Gates should sleep on a bed of nails), I doubt this is true. Gates has a TON more money than Linus, and can thus, can afford to buy a better (sound proof) place to sleep. If he didn't have a sound proof house, he'd be up all night, listening to the splatter of all the eggs that hit his house each night!!!
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
And when was it Linus tried to muster those resources, and failed? Just curious.. I don't recall it happening.
If Linus decided to ask for something outright, you can bet people would contribute.
that Linus isn't the one who invented Open Source. Linus just invented the "release early&often" technique that made that idea popular.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
I guess that's what it comes down to.
There are many people - business, but especially programmers, who love Linus for what he's done. And why has he done it? Because he loves what he does, and it's created something wonderful, as much art as it is productive.
There are people who love Bill Gates and Steve Balmer, to be sure - my dad is a huge supporter of Microsoft, and was set to give an address at a recent function. He and I were talking about this, and he made a comment about how he was going to have to bring up security somehow without making "the overseers" look bad. He did this tongue in cheek - but it was evident he didn't "like" the guys he works with, he does it for a business reason.
Look at the almost cult-like following of Steve Jobs. Granted, Bill Gates has more money. Steve Ellison has more money. Ross Perot? More money. But if you look at the differences in people in history who were "loved" rather than just "respected", it's kind of funny how history remembers them.
You wonder if in 100 years from now, people will remember Linus as "the innovator who gave us Linux" so on and so forth, and Bill Gates as "Oh, yeah - the rich guy. He was the Rockerfeller of the late 20th century".
Just some random thoughts - take them as you like.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Gates can, at any time, get out of the software business and take his huge fortune (power) and wield it to do something else. He can buy an island, put a huge laser cannon on top of its highest mountain, and populate it with a thousand expensive "escort companions" to satisfy his every whim, every night. Money is raw power that can be converted to many uses.
Linus can't do that. Linus can just dominate the software world, but his power is mostly limited to that subject. I don't think Linus will ever have a giant laser cannon.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
They're still in the wrong goddamned place!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Hmmm...reading this article reminds me of the classic arguments and debates that I manage to have with my friends and my family. Some people believe in a more capitalistic system of resource allotment, in which resources are only controlled by those people who use them, and they put them to the use that they best want, whereas a more communist kind of system has a structure in place to determine where resources are used. The really cool thing about the capitalist kind of system is that it can adapt to a changing resource picture much faster than the communist kind of way. It almost seems as though this article is saying much the same, except linus commands a fluid resource pool, and bill controls a resource pool that is fixed (although it does change according to the corporate goal of the month).
All in all, good article.
1) Leave kids with Michael Jackson
2) ???
3) Profit!!!
In Soviet Russia, kids molest Michael Jackson!
I think this is why Linux is doing as well as it is. Does it have huge show stopping bugs that have to be rooted out, waited for the next patch, worried over for major security problems? Oh, once in a blue moon (literally), but not as often as Windows.
Linus can take things on the time schedule as he sees. He is beholding to no one but his peers, so his goal is not to make Linux updates "timely", but to make them "right".
MS has shareholders. Shareholders want "quarterlies" whether the product is "right" or not - and that influences the release schedule.
Of course, I guess you can take the concept of "When it's done" too far - look at Duke Nukem Forever....
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
my real treasure is in open source.
Linus has a worldwide army of voluteer and hobbyist developers, testers, etc. Bill has the employees at Microsoft.
But MS also has a worldwide army of volunteer and hobbyist developers, building tools and solutions with MS products. Some good, some not so good.
MS also has many, many manufacturers tripping all over themselves building and testing hardware drivers for their products.
Wrong. Torvalds is not counting on the marketplace's judegement of anything. In every interview he plainly states that he has no market-driven or competetive goals whatsoever. He simply wants to make Linux improve over time for whoever chooses to use it, whether that is ten people or a billion.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Do you honestly believe that? Look, I would LOVE to see MS adopt a more open model, but that is because I know how much it would benefit me, and the rest of the tech community, not because I believe for a minute that it would actually be better for Microsoft. Do you really think they would have 90% market share with open source products? Of course not. They got where they are by not sharing the pie with anyone. If they opened up, others would take what they have done and run with it. People would release 100% compatible versions of Windows, Office, IIS, etc that were more secure with less bug fixes, and Microsoft would have to work harder, spend more money in development and QA, and still end up with less of the market, thus less money. For that matter why would anyone buy XP if Windows NT 4 was still under active development by an open source community that made it just as modern and up to date? Would all this be good for the rest of the world? Yes. Would it make MS "loads more money"? Absolutely not.
SCO.com uses Linux
Do you really think the US govt is going to let him liquidate his assets just like that?
I just tried it on Win2k Workstation, and it reflowed properly; I've never seen any different behavior on any other flavor of Windows, either, going back to 3.1 and Win/OS2.
OTOH, some versions of NT (At least 3.5(1), if not 4.0) had Notepad default to saving files in UTF-8, which could seriously bamboozle apps that were trying to read their config files. That happened to me several times when admining Netscape Enterprise Server.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
Value can be looked at from two different sides: consumer: does it work and add value when I use it; producer: can I make money from it.
Bill cares about the latter, Linux and users about the former. Bill cares about the consumer's attitude to the extent that he gets sales, but would rather exert power play to keep market share.
I put it to you that in the long term OSS makes more sense because Bill will kill (or not support) products in line with his business interests, not yours. BIll has not brought anything significant to the party for a long time so, apart from power play, it is difficult to see how he can keep market share in the long term.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Good article overall, in fact pretty damn amazing coming from mainstream press. But I did notice one disturbing thing:
And while Torvalds and Linux have recently faced legal issues about whether Linux might have some proprietary code embedded in it, that distraction is dwarfed by the time and energy Gates has devoted to battling the U.S. Justice Dept.
Now, all of us here are aware that the 2 cases are pretty much polar opposites. The former is the little guy being picked on by a big, greedy coporation. The latter is the little guys (us, represented by the govenment) picking on the big, greedy coporation.
Most of the non-tech people I know are aware that MS's name had been dragged through the mud as a result of the DOJ case, and have a lot less respect for MS now that the law has found them guilty. Regardless of the merits of the case, or the result, the fact is the general public often thinks of MS as the bad guys simply because of a court decision.
I really, really hope this doesn't happen to Linux, but articles that even mention the 2 situations in the same paragraph (without explanation) blur the issue. How long until my Mom asks me about Linux, the "Operating System written by thieves"?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
When you have a giant laser cannon, you don't worry about what the US govt will "let" you do.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Occam's razor: Simplest explanation rulez.
Linus sleeps more soundly than Bill, not becuase of the complicated dynamics that the author dissected, but simply because of Shakespeare.
-The most obvious one: If Linux has so many more resources, than why doesn't it have all the features of Windows already? Flame me all you want, but it doesn't.
-Even though Linus has "the millions who use Linux and continue to tinker with it", in reality there are very few contributors (definitely not millions). Windows also has a larger installed base and thus a larger possible base of testers. How does that factor in?
-It neglects the fact that Linus's disadvantage solely as a gatekeeper, instead of director, is that unpopular, tedious, but necessary work might never get done. One advantage of motivating with money is that you can force people to do work they might not otherwise elect to do. I mean, how many MP3 players does Linux need?
-I don't think BillG has any trouble sleeping at night. Linux might be a threat to his company, but it's not going to make him a lowly multimillionaire any time soon.
What a bunch of cheerleading.
How can he when Gates can't even get sharks with friggin laser beams on their heads? He's not going to settle for some mutated sea bass.
Windows has always installed in under a gig, 256mb for 98se with a gui web browser, tcp/ip, and dialup-networking.
You will be hard pressed to get a suitable equivalent out of linux for the space. I saw a distro once that fit itself into 650MB and onto a cd.
I know about floppy-based distributions and such that work for text-only and firewalls, but when you start looking at things like X Windows and web browsers and the like, your hardware requirements go way beyond the 75Mhz Pentium.
The whole concept of bloated windows is laughable when compared to most distributions of linux.
Hey, everyone look! It's RMS posting as this termos guy. Flame him, flame him!
The author of the article, I believe, is guilty of the usual mistake of confusing the Linux kernel with an entire operating system. But people usually think of more than than GNU plus Linux when they think of this OS. What name would include GNU, Linux, Apache, Mozilla, KDE, etc. without using one distro's name? It's a problem that most people solve by calling all the open source software making up the entire system Linux.
Developers: We can use your help.
Linus may be a geek hero to you guys, but his influence ends there. Gates has, on a whole, done more good for the world in general (and has accomplished much more than just an OS).
I know its fashionable to bash Gates around here, but most people just arent walking around with their eyes open. Look up from the keyboard once in a while.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
SCO may only be the first of many to try to attempt to somehow grab the reins of the open source community. Some may try to find a loophole in the GPL. Others may try other unthought of tactics to make a quick buck at the expense of the altruistic group that comprise the Open Source movement. It's all made the more easier if you have a cadre of unscrupulous lawyers who aren't afraid of risking a little money and time in order to litigate the presumably legally underdefended targets such as Torvalds and RMS. Watch SCO, you future vermin!First terrorize LT and RMS and threaten them with lawsuits. Meanwhile extort the legitimate Linux users (the ultimate payoff). Laugh all the way to the bank. Appologize (or do nothing) only when it eventually comes down to the end and Open Source's honor is eventually vindicated.
New business model Summarized:
1. Exploit Open Source/GPL Loophole
2. Hire cadre of lawyers
3. ????
4. Profit from gullible business Linux users
5. Lose multi-year court battles
6. Appologize
7. Slip into handsomely rewarded obscurity
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
I'll believe that when I see a parody of the Matrix with Linus in it.
Can anyone explain to me what about linux is so creative? The weakest spot of linux is the lack of creativity and innovation. Everything is a big rip off of microsoft windows and windows does it better.
I think maybe I'll report a registered SCO licensee...
If Torvalds were to die in an airplane crash, could you say the same of Linux? Im not so sure anyone could do what he does, since he is at the center of the kernel project, making sure all the insecure egos dont get bruised.
With Torvalds gone, there is already a model for what would happen. Its called Unix.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
There are not many Open Source developpers that actively take part to a project for more than a few patches, or at most, a few months. That's in my opinion the major leak of OSS. Many good project never reach a stable status, because of coders departures, and because of project forks. It would somtimes be good to get some experience from company-like organisations, where a project often MUST be finished, for the company to keep some credibilityn or often to survive.
____
nico
Nico-Live
I know you're joking, but I have to give Bill Gates some credit. If I was obscenely wealthy like that, I don't think I would be ABLE to stop myself from buying a laser cannon.
It would be like you or me buying a Snickers.
Whenever you put two teams or organizations side by side there will be differences as to which team is most effective or successful. Usually the team that is pulling together towards a higher goal will achieve more. Compare two project teams, one with a shared vision that has value, versus a team that is told what to do by the boss because the boss says it is the right thing to do. Which team will perform better? I would place my bets on the team with a shared vision that produces real value. If you have ever been part of an organization with esprit de corps, you will know what I mean.
www.mikesmind.com - www.daddyworkathome.com - www.freetofarm.org - www.tenfoottable.com
I've just tried Win98 SE and it works, haven't got anything more archaic than that to hand :P
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
Oh, their status could be worse. They could be trolls.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Just some nitpicks from the article
/. belief, Windows doesn't get in the way of the things I want/need to do, it doesn't crash 10 times an hour, etc. If you handed me a Linux box, I'd have to take about 10 steps back as my workflow revolves around Visual Studio quite heavily. MS produces some GREAT tools. However, when I want to use *NIX, I choose Linux (because BSD ain't got full Java 1.4. Dammit.). It's just a fucking OS, mkay?
:(
1) Money vs. Altruism - The journalist seems to think altruism and linux kinda go hand in hand. Not so. I think altruism is one of the worst policies one could have towards anything. Instead, when I choose and use Linux, its not out of "altruism" that I submit bug reports and alpha/beta test software; it's because I want better software and the only way developers can fix bugs is if they know they exist. (another reason is because in a lot of cases, I have no choice but to use alpha/beta software because mature non-alpha/beta software isn't available). I doubt most developers do it out of the love of "giving away" their hard earned time devoted to software development, they do gain something, even if it is just pride. IBM certainly doesn't contribute Billion$ to Linux development because it's a giant love fest, but because IBM sees billions more in potential revenues providing Linux based solutions. Sure, there are a lot of FSF hippies running around spouting off about "free software", but fortunately most of us keep religion out of our software and computers and like to use things that WORK. Being free (as in beer) only helps things out. I have no moral qualms with people who choose not to embrace Open Source methodology.
2) Geek fervor - Another poster nailed it on the head: an awful lot of "geeks" don't give a damn about Microsoft. Linux is an interesting project for them to work on. I think a world without Microsoft (and Apple, for that matter) would be poorer indeed because I think MS does provide a SUPERIOR desktop at the moment (to Linux). I use MS products everyday and don't think twice about it. Contrary to popular
What I really like about the Linux "scene", though, is the rampant experimentation. Things like Dashboard. As much as I deride Mono for various issues, things like Dashboard really get me excited about things for linux. There seems to be a lot of creativity flowing from Linux, however it seems most people make a living in a non-Linux world.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Why do people think that sharing ideas is communism? If the federal government controlled Linux, that would be communism. Communism is a form of government. If I lend my neighbor my lawn mower am I being a commie? No, I am being a good neighbor. And I will probably get a favor in return. (Not that I help people only for a reward.)
Medicine and physics seem to work fine in this sharing environment. No one patents an operation. Instead when a doctor learns of a discovery they make money giving lectures about a new procedure.
What you are seeing is not Communism, it is a resource economy. Instead of exchanging goods and services people are giving resources to those who put them to good use. And thus making the fruits of their labor available to everyone. Which is the basics of a resource-based economy.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
That will be true when Bill is willing to GPL his software. Until then, Bill is relegated to software that is free (as in do whatever you want with it), as opposed to Free (as in RMS).
So I'd say that the bulk of what is referred to as Open Source is quite inaccessible to Bill. And as for benefits to Bill through competition, no way. Bill doesn't benefit by making windows better - he benefits by selling more copies of windows. If linux were not around, he could sell more copies of windows with less effort put into improvements.
I think Bill would be hard-pressed to find anything about the Open/Free/free software movement that he likes.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
The article makes the same mistake that most articles of this kind make: it assumes that everyone who uses linux gets the sourcecode, that everyone who gets the sourcecode looks at the sourcecode, and that everybody who looks at the sourcecode contributes to it. This leads to the conclusion that Linus has an army of millions at his disposal, which is simply not true.
Bill Gates has more lawyers at his disposal.
-cbare
In terms of positive effects on the balance of payments of developing nations, Torvalds is a far larger philanthropist than Gates.
Gates' "generosity" consists of giving back a scant few pennies of every dollar he takes from societies than can ill afford parasites.
Creativity and freedom to innovate...with not just the potential, but the mandate to create disruptive technologies is what keeps Bill, Darl and the other software "toll-booth operators" up at night. Under the GPL, the system will route around their toll-booths. Linus doesn't even need to tell people which direction to move in!...They decide for themselves, that's the power! In this case, the words "innovate" and "freedom" are NOT being used in the typical marketing droid / press-release-spin fashion, they really mean exactly what they say. This threatens people, who's only control over the course of the future is through money.
Tying this back to the SCO mess, Darl's comments about the GPL needing change to be "better towards business" is where the fight is going to come next. Perhaps he's got the idea that he can make the GPL illegal simply because it competes with his business model and the business models of other propriatary software vendors. The funny comment the other day about "GPL hurting business and putting programmers out of work, programmers should only work on projects that don't have a commercial equiv." is only the beginning. The GPL strikes at the heart of who controls innovation, and who can keep it back for the purpose of making money.
I, for one, see this as a huge opportunity. I have benifited directly from the GPL. I would LOVE to see the big-business anaconda get slain by a million flea bites, it's poetic justice.
The anti-GPL attitude, the notion that "it's bad for propriatary business models therefore it should be illegal" needs to be assulted before it starts to gain strength under law. SCO and crew are making that claim now, looking for a way to rewrite the GPL in such a way that they can enforce artificial scarcity. Like real property, the value of intellectual property lays in it's scarcity. Unlike real property, software can be copied infinitely without cost.
The idea that the GPL will hurt programmers is bogus and needs to be denounced every time it pops up. The GPL only hurts the "land owners" who keep hundreds of "software surfs" on their estate. There will ALWAYS be work for talented programmers, the question at hand is whether those programmers will be working as "free agents" or as "indentured servants." Should the servant care about the fortunes of their master? I don't see why, I have not been treated all that well under the feudal software system.
You will have no reason not to switch to proprietary software when the proprietary software is low-cost. Despite what Open Source movement proponents say about making better code, many so-called Open Source programs are functionally inferior to their proprietary competitors. If all you value is saving money or the practical ends that the Open Source movement champions, you'll never miss the freedom to share and modify software. It's great to get someone interested in Free Software by demonstrating practical use, and it's true some people are uncomfortable talking about ethics and responsibility as well as convenience. But the Free Software community was not built by giving into whatever businesses want. The FSF wrote an interesting essay comparing the Free Software movement with the Open Source movement.
Crediting Linus Torvalds as an altrustic operator is simply incorrect. Torvalds' brand of pragmatism falls squarely into the problem I just described--his use of Bitkeeper is a perfect example. He is also not "Linux' guardian" (as the BusinessWeek article claims). If that title is accurate at all, it properly belongs to the GNU General Public License, the preeminent Free Software license written by the FSF: the organization whose ethical basis Torvalds dismisses.
Digital Citizen
It's a good point, really. If Bill G said:
"hey guys, I have this big project, might take a year or two to complete but it will be awesome... I can't pay you right now but we will all benefit later..."
How many people would go for this?
Now if Linus said something similar... don't you think you'd get quite a few people ready to donate whatever time they could?
It's like the old stories of rich kings Vs good leaders: rich kings have trained soldiers and can hire mercenaries. The good leader has people who will fight for him (or his cause), and in many cases die for it. Mercs will often fight for money, but not die for it.
is calc.exe. These are the only 2 windows programs I have never seen crash
Does that mean he can get frickin' sharks with frickin' lasers on their foreheads, too?
Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
The headline claims that the article "makes a solid argument in favor of OSS in general and Linux in particular, from a solidly capitalist perspective". Sort of, not really. The article merely points out that Linux has many more people working on it, who are (it is assumed) more motivated and creative. There isn't really any discussion of capitalism, except to point out that in some cases money may not be the only factor determining the success of a project. Really, the article doesn't point out anything that most people interested in the topic didn't know already. The really interesting question, as regards capitalism, is how Open Source projects (and the people who work on them) will be funded. The author doesn't go into that, except to suggest that Linux is more akin to a charity project, or a religious movement than to a commercial effort. The only thing interesting about the article is that it happens to have been published in Business Week, but that isn't even that exciting, considering that quite a few large, important buisnesses (i.e. IBM), are using Linux these days. The article is basically a Linux cliff notes for executive types.
I hate how the media classifies open-source as the work of 'hackers' and hobbiests. It adds to the "illegitamacy" that is spewed by SCO et. al.
Although many people have contributed to open-source projects without monetary rewards many projects, including Linux have reached the point where many large companies are paying developers to maintain/add features that are important to them. In fact, I only know 1 person who contributes as a hobby, and I know many that get paid very well by their employers to contribute.
Even if Linus does get a laser cannon, he probably won't be able to find any drivers for it.
It's a nice introduction for someone who knows nothing about the subject, but hardly contributes anything else.
hey genius, the author of the article is a an economics buff, not a computer scientist. the article was in business week, not linux journal. don't expect leaps and bounds or anything.
you'd think your low userid would equate to intelligence; joke's on me!
No offense, but Bill Gates has 40,000 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES. Thats 40,000 people doing what he says 8 hrs/day on demand. Linus might have 100,000 contributors, but less than 1% are active regularly and even less than that are full time devotees.
If Linus had anywhere near the resources that Billy has, then Linux would be a Desktop competitor.
Monopolies do not come about by government inaction. They come about precisely because of government action: priviledges granted by the government to various corporations. Microsoft's "monopoly", if you can call it that, only exists because of government-granted patents and copyrights. Without these, there is no MS monopoly.
The only way for the free market to function optimally is for the government to retract itself from the market entirely, and cease any tampering with the free market.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Since when is duplicating other people's products creative? Most OSS software is a knock-off of something else.
From people with no money? Yeah, a real solid business model there.
Very hard to direct them to go where you want, impossible to keep from going where they want.
Linus exerts more control by running the can opener, rather than the whip, as any cat owner would testify.
In carefully thinking my options through with regard to the most well known operating systems that a home "power user" might choose to work with, I've formulated the following axiom regarding usability:
Linux is to Windows as Windows is to Mac OS (Pre OS X).
What this means is left to the reader to determine and will obviously vary depending on which OS you prefer. Example:
A Mac user would see it this way:
Hardest is to Hard as Hard is to Easy
A Linux user would see it this way:
Least obfuscated is to Obfuscated as Obfuscated is to Most Obfuscated
A Windows user would see it this way:
"What was the question"? or "Oooooh shiny!"
Let the flamefest begin!
I just wanted to say that free markets are about freedoms and not about markets. When you have true freedoms, then the markets will tend to take care of themselves as people use tohse freedoms to their benefit and advantage.
Microsoft is not about free markets because it is not about freedom. In fact they assume on faith, that the right to restrict what other people copy at their disposal, copyrights, is a fundamental inherent right. It is not. In the future I have no doubt that copyrights will be lumped in with the right of the government to choose your speech, and the right of government to choose your religion, or even the right to own slaves (another false 'property' right). In the meantime, we just half to fight it out. Microsoft will not sit arround passively while people who exercise their freedoms cut into revenues. All hell will surely break loose.
CmdrTaco is.
A few smartly worded front page stories, and he can move the whole OSS/FS movement to the direction he wants.
The author pulls some sleight-of-word here, lumping two quite different groups together. There are certainly "millions who use Linux" but there are far fewer who "tinker with it", a claim supported by looking at the difference between the number of downloads or users with the number of patch submitters or CVS commit privilege holders. This disparity is a natural one; few people have the skill, time, or inclination to contribute, even to tools they find useful.
Doubtlessly people will reply that the number of users directly contributes to bug detection which is a valid point. However the utility of a bug-report and of a patch are certainly not equal. Furthermore, the same analysis can be done in this case by comparing the number of people who experience bugs to the number who file bug reports (not to mention the fact that Microsoft has millions of users to detect bugs as well. Why do you think they have automated bug reports these days?). I'm not discounting the value of many eyes on a product but the article is using an optimistic metric.
Linux's advantage isn't in the millions of users (since Windows has many more) but in the thousands of patch submitters. Indeed, this may be why creating linux-for-the-masses is a hard problem: Ease of use, polish, and intuitive design aren't something captured in twenty-line fixes; they need to be woven through entire user interface. It is certainly possible to make Unix "just work" but, so far, it's taken professional designers paid by Apple to do so.
The free market (with lots of little independent companies that buy sell and trade goods) creates a mutually profitable self organizing system
The object of this "free market" is defined by copyright law, hence controlled by government. How then can you call it a free market?
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
And the GNU General Public License, which defends the Free Software community from proprietary derivatives. Torvalds gets a lot of credit he doesn't deserve in the BW article and the author shows no sign of understanding what contribution to the community Torvalds made. But judging by the bulk of posts moderated highly in this thread, I'd say a lot of readers and moderators are, unfortunately, comfortable in the myth that "Linux" is an operating system and that very little of value was developed before the Linux kernal appeared on the scene. Reading the GNU/Linux naming FAQ (particularly the parts around "Why not call the system "Linux" anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as posterboy for our community?") is apparently going out of style except for when this FAQ is the story. Giving credit where credit is due is becoming a lost art.
Digital Citizen
Linux and OSS gathered momentum because of huge amount surplus disposable capital and manhours created by the boom.
It is now kept alive by hardware and services vendors seeking to commoditize software following the 'commoditize your partners' credo as done by windows and their thrust is in the enterprise market right now and I doubt whether they have the interest (or have the resources to compete against MSFT) in the consumer market which traditionally has thinner margins.
The average Joe and Jane just want something that works out of the box and do not really care about 'free as in freedom' and other war cries. If they cannot afford it, they stop using it or move to cheaper alternatives. It is not like they cannot lead a productive life without cutting-edge software.
Mod parent down. (Score:-1, Either way out of touch or outright lying)
And isn't that the sad thing? That guy has soooo much money, and yet he doesn't do anything wild with it, just for the hell of it.
I'd be buying all kinds of stuff. If I didn't spend 2m a day, I'd be doing something wrong. I'd live a wild lifestyle. I'd give small fortunes to random people for no reason. I'd buy huge lasers cannons, small islands, and lots of "escort" companions. I'd have wild orgies, and massive parties. I'd leave first class tickets at every airport in the world, and just let random people pick them up and fly out to visit me. I'd travel all around the world. Shit, there's so much I would (and will!) do with billions.
Get your own free personal location tracker
If that's the case, I can only imagine how much lower a lifeform YOU must be if you have to hide yourself when you're among people as pathetic as US.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Unfortunately, UI design doesn't work well when done in a haphazard, distributed environment.
A good UI is clean, organized, and above all CONSISTANT. When there's thousands of people inventing interfaces (and hacking dozens of existing interfaces) it makes the desktop experience just as fragmented.
Microsoft is working hard to make the next version of Windows tight and consistent. And, of course, that's always been the primary benefit of using Macs -- you can usually pick up a new piece of software and easily figure it out because of the consistency.
Which is what Microsoft should be doing! They are attacking the main weakness of the distributed (licenses aside) nature of open source projects: lack of interface consistency and standards.
And RedHat and the rest of the dists. of Linux dont pay anyone? And Linus "doesnt need them?"
Seems to me Linus would have been SOL if GNU hadnt worked for him, as well as Slackware and Redhat hadn't paid people to clean up the mess (partially).
Advantage: Not the consumers of Linux.
Nice article. The only thing that really bugged me was the author missed one of the most important advantages to Linux -- i.e. the *freedom* to do what you want with the code. Instead he mentions only that its "free" (low cost). Maybe thats because that kind of freedom is of no interest to the author or the intended audience (business types?). The idea of being able to modify or create derivative software seems to have been lost or suppressed by the commercial software industry. I think another reason is that English doesnt have separate words for the two (main) meanings of "free". And English is still the dominant language of the business and tech worlds (for now). This lack of a linguistic separation may limit the way some English-speakers think about Linux. Perhaps we should start a movement to import a couple of new words from some other language that doesnt have this problem. Any suggestions?
My life is an open book ... up to a point.
One of the things that continuously bothers me about people who write about open source and even people who post here frequently is this whole "linux vs windows" talking about market shares, competition, and linux domination.
What people need to understand is that Linux wasn't created to be specifically an alternative to windows, it wasn't made to bring down the beast at redmond, and it wasn't created because BSD is dying or to be the one true OS. It wasn't created with hopes of making lots of engineers rich and lots of middlemen richer. It was created because it was fun and educational to do so at the time. Seems to me that all of these people who are trying to reconcile linux's role from a capitalist perspective are missing the boat. Linux isn't THE alternative or THE future, but it will be there along for the ride.
It's a commonly repeated manta that you can't understand something until you have broken it.
"He who breaks something to find out what it is has lost the path to wisdom" -- Gandalf.
(of course Tolkien WAS a bit of Luddite)
Cheers,
I.V.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
While Torvalds is a threat to Gates, Gates seems to be little or no threat to Torvalds. To hear Torvalds talk about it, he's having fun as Linux' guardian. His challenge is merely that of being an effective shepherd to a vast flock of very creative, un-sheeplike sheep.
A flock of sheep? Shouldn't that be a herd of cats?
AEIOU: open-source anonymous internet currency
And I am not afraid to stand by my words.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
The only way for the free market to function optimally is for the government to retract itself from the market entirely, and cease any tampering with the free market.
It's time to put this tired old libertarian fantasy to rest. The "free market," as you call it, wouldn't even exist without government. For the free market to work, we need a system of property rights, which requires some form of legislation to decide who can own what, a judicial system to settle disputes, and an executive branch to enforce those property rights (i.e. by jailing people for stealing.) For any decently-sized economy, there needs to be a commonly accepted currency-- again something the government sets up. And a capitalist economy is impossible without a relatively stable social order-- thanks to government. If the government withdrew completely from the economic sphere, we wouldn't have capitalism. We'd have barbarism, rival warlords slaughtering people for control of resources. You can argue that the government is currently regulating the market well or regulating it poorly, but there would be no market if it did not regulate it at all.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
you are a highbrown academic LOSER
Does anyone else hear the strains of 'Dualling Banjo's' in the air?
won of the the 2-3 sites left that does that?
robbIE?
definitely won't browse there for some time...
Shit. Thats it, you've convinced me. I'm cleaning my harddisk now. Can't run linux after reading that post.
Greasy fags? That's horrific, i wish someone had told me this earlier...
If this is true, there may be many reasons, perhaps working in concert (different people may have different and multiple reasons, making the effect much stronger). For example, the fact that the developer can see the OS code may make him far more confident in working on code above it... because he can really understand what's going on underneath (and fix it if there's a problem). Having the entire OS's code means that he can experiment with anything... and even if today he doesn't want to experiment with something, using OSS/FS means that he'll be more prepared for that time when he does. From a security point-of-view, he can analyze and fix anything, and knowing that others can do that too might raise his confidence in the results. By improving OSS/FS, he gains respect in the technical community that he wouldn't get simply by writing closed code (even if they're both paid for, everyone can see EXACTLY what you did in the open code).
I'm sure there are others.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Utility industries have not been completely de-regulated. Let me explain how government regulation works. The government regulates something, trying to solve a problem it fabricated. Then it realizes that it just created another problem, so it regulates to get rid of that problem, while creating another problem anew. The process predictably goes on an on, until we have communism, or the government realizes that it's interventions have harmed things. The same applies to the utilities. Because the government only partially de-regulated, enormous problems caused by the regulation that's left over (which now isn't being counter-acted by other limiting regulation) are revealed. The solution is simply to completely deregulate all at once.
In regards to people who drink tainted water, and other pollution torts. Pollution is exactly that -- a tort. A violation of private property, analagous to tresspassing, and should be treated as such. If a company pollutes the air, and this causes damage to my trees or reduces the purity of water that I own, then the company should have to pay to either compensate me, retroactively fix [purify] the problem, or eliminate the problem.
To understand how the free market solves the problem of pollution, where government regulation is a failure, see Rothbard's For a New Liberty:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty12.asp
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
wait a minute. A 10% management base * 40000 employees = 4000 managers => counts as -40000 employees
40000 employees - 4000 managers = 36000 nonmanager employees.
Totaling the effective employee count of 36000 nonmanager employees and -40000 employee equivalent managers = -4000 employees.
How can a company employee < 0 persons?
Even if they can, that would imply that their products would be regressing, and as bad as Microsoft software is, it *is* getting better.
I'd say a manager was worth about -8.99975 employees, but that's just a rough estimate
You're absolutely right and the grandparent is a moron. The most powerful counterexample to the government-free economy is history, where companies used to have their own armies (East-India companies to be exact). Would you feel comfortable with Microsoft having an army that they could employ at will? No matter how powerful Tove is, Linus wouldn't last a day.
My paper More than a Gigabuck: Estimating GNU/Linux's Size measured Red Hat Linux 7.1. It found that this distribution had over 30 million physical source lines of code (SLOC), it would cost over $1 billion (a Gigabuck) to develop this Linux distribution by conventional proprietary means in the U.S. (in year 2000 U.S. dollars), and would have required about 8,000 person-years of development time. Over one year's time, it represented a 60% increase in size, effort, and traditional development costs.
Another study (inspired by mine) looked at Debian 2.2. The found that Debian 2.2 includes more than 55 million physical SLOC, and would have cost nearly $1.9 billion USD using over 14,000 person-years to develop using traditional proprietary techniques.
Linus, of course, doesn't have any sort of real control of GNU/Linux outside the kernel. But in the context of this article, the real issue seems to be a comparison of the open source / Free software community (as represented by GNU/Linux, the Linux kernel, and Linus Torvalds) versus Microsoft. And in that sense, this community has managed to acquire an absolutely astounding amount of resources, since it's managed to become competitive with Microsoft in spite of the many roadblocks it's had to handle (lack of hardware vendor support, perception that the approach can't work, etc.).
More quantitative data showing that there cases where open source software / free software is competitive is available in my paper "Why OSS/FS? Look at the Numbers!".
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
"Anti-Linux peple will say "Oh, you have this one guy who runs the kernel like a tyrant.. what if what he does doesn't match up with what big business wants?"
An even better answer that one can give this question is: Linus is only a tyrant of what is called Linux, not of the underlying code, and everyone is free to build what they want from it. If Big Business wants something Linus doesn't provide, then they can fork Linux and make BigBuisnux to do what they want. AND if it is for internal use only, then they don't even have to open their source. But if they turn BigBuisnux free, then they might get improvements and expansions coming back to them. Everyone wins.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
If Linus Torvalds has more resources at his disposal than Bill Gates, then what when we add Richard Stallman, Larry Wall, Don Knuth, Damian Conway, Guido van Rossum, Norman Hardy, Bruce Schneier, Ian Murdock, Martin Michlmayr, Nicholas Weaver, Ken Thompson, Robert Thau, Theo de Raadt, Robert Malda, et cetera? Amazing. Truly amazing.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Linux needs Bill Gates to grow. Like you need gravity to walk. hehe.. what am I saying? Gravity can't walk..
If there is one word that gets my back up, even after going through my Ayn Rand phase and emerging unscathed, it's *altruism*.
Altruism, in philosophical terms, means the subordination of self-interest to the interest of an Other. That Other can be an amorphous mass, like Society. That Other can be The Leader, be that leader the current head of the Chinese Communist Party or George W. Bush or Osama Bin Laden. That Other can be God, Allah, Odin, Kami-Sama or the Hindu Trimurti, depending on where you live and what creed you believe in. It doesn't matter in the end. Deeds done in self-interest are tainted. Deeds done for another, especially which result in self-annihilation, are ennobled. Do you see how fscked that is?
Linus Torvalds didn't GPL the Linux kernel for altruistic reasons. He did it because he needed the help from other programmers, and he had a sense that opening up the code and letting others work on it would improve it far beyond what his own abilities as a programmer could allow him.
Every Open-Source developer I know has a similar rationale to putting their code out under an Open license. They do it because they realize that there are other minds out there who might be able to solve problems in a different and better way.
The first thing to do when thinking about F/OSS is to chuck that "a" word. It does the whole process a major disservice. Voluntary cooperation/collaboration towards a commonly held goal is a better way to describe it. Yeah, it doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as a single word. But it's more accurate.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
fuck off, bitch.
FO! Do you speak it!
fuchs off, biaotch
"I'll tell you who I am if you give me your PGP private key."
Wow, a coward and stupid... what a surprise.
Grandparent? You, I am afraid, are a moron.
The proof is that your pitiful attempt at a counterexample is the East-India company having its own army. The East-India company was so powerfull because it was granted a monopoly on trade with India. No other British companies or ships could trade there, and non-Britich ships had to face the British Navy if they tried to do so.
Unfortunately, UI design doesn't work well when done in a haphazard, distributed environment.
Yawn... Yet another pundit who tried Linux for about a week in 1998 and still thinks he knows about linux. Try Gnome 2.4 or the latest KDE (3.2, I think?) for a while and see if the interface is still so much less consistent than Windows.
Microsoft is working hard to make the next version of Windows tight and consistent.
And maybe this time, after 10 versions they'll get it right. The only consistency in the Windows UI now is that usefulness of an option is proportional to how many levels of menus and dialog boxes you have to traverse to reach it.
And equally importantly this shows the impossibility of eliminating government. The East India companies became de facto governments, even if they were not de jure governments. But rather than being representative governments that had the interests of their citizens in mind, they were imperialistic institutions that exploited the people under their "care" ruthlessly. There's every reason to think that big businesses would do exactly the same thing today if we were to relax control over them.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
If updating NT 4 to XP levels requires downloading X number of packages of Y megabytes, plenty of people are going to opt to just drop their dollars on XP.
...."
Multiple releases, complicated interactions between various patches released by different individuals and the various problems this creates in tracking down bugs are things that some people don't want to spend their time on.
The people who are willing to jump these hurdles are probably already not using Microsoft OSs.
If all you do is create a cheaper Windows replica, who is going to use it? The same people who now buy $2 CD copies??
To pull a true Microsoft, you would need to embrace and extend Windows. So after re-writing Windows XP entirely, you now need to add something additional that users will actually want in order for them to use your product instead of Microsofts.
Where are you going to get your developers from, most of them use other OSs where the development tools are freely available? "Hey, come work on FreeWin, you just need to buy 3 compilers at DDDD dollars a pop
I don't think you points are totally invalid, Microsofts business is heavily structered around closed source and closed formats, but those are not the only cards they hold in their hand.
I was refering to South America, where some countries pretty much completely deregulated utility industries, and havoc ensued.
It sounds like Rothbard, from your description, is describing laws that marketize environmental protection. This has failed before, and it will fail in the future. Who files a tort, when the victim and his relatives are all dead? And, who sets the value of compensation for polluted air?
Also, sending out a link to a page that refers to "Liberal petulance" in the first paragraph isn't a great way to endorse free market pollution controls to someone who expressed a fairly liberal position.
I just resent the fact that the Republicans tells me how great free markets are, while at the same time telling me that we have to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. Hello?
Education is the silver bullet.
The scary conclusion one could draw from this is that Bill Gates intends to use his billions to create a dynastic empire, just like the Carnegies and the Rockefellers did - and he can't waste anything on having "fun".
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
You are in the fantasy world, I never mentioned the US, you did.
I presume that the laws of free markets would apply, no matter which country they are applied in? Even if the country is in South America?
Education is the silver bullet.
Fewer and fewer people do M$ stuff as a hobby anymore. It's expensive and second rate. You can get more done with free software today and will be able to for the foreseeable future. Oh yeah, forget about trying to make money at it. The cost of polishing things up will eat you alive.
MS also has many, many manufacturers tripping all over themselves building and testing hardware drivers for their products.
It's more like they are looking for every way out from under Microsoft's nasty domination. They also have to pay through the nose for SDKs and still have no idea if M$ will grant them the favor of letting their hardware run. The testers are the people unfortunate enough to buy M$. I've seen Microsoft's Updater load up an old driver version that caused an Intel Winmodem to hang up sporadically. If M$ won't listen to Intel, who will they listen to?
Microsoft promised everyone that they would make more money if they kept things closed and followd the M$ monster. It turns out that only Microsoft can make money with Microsoft. Anyone who makes anything worth while faces extortion and then direct competition from the origninator of the scheme. It serves them right, after all the intent was to screw the user.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"The comparison between Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds is ultimately meaningless; their jobs aren't remotely similar. A comparison between Linus and whoever oversees OS development within Microsoft would be more useful, and there, I think, Linus probably does command more and better developers. The original article might better be read with Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds as symbols of closed-source commercial software versus open and free software"
If so then maybe the correct comparison would be Stallman & GNU (unix user interface) versus Gates & Windows (Xerox Parc user interface).
The article is entertaining and I agree with much of it but billing this as a capitalist view of the situation is not correct. This is about production not about the monetization or resources. Though the two are related this is nothing we haven't heard before and leaves out that all important step of transforming production efficiency and creative desing into money. A very misleading slashdot characterization.
(Sorry for sort of dissing model railroaders and longbeards, two groups for whom I have much respect.)
There are no trolls. There are no trees out here.
Thousands (millions?) would take a bullet for Linus.
Millions (billions?) would shoot a bullet at Bill.
The Gates foundation donated 12 milion in cash to the Alameda county / Oakland school district small school reform efforts. I know this because part of the money pays my wife's salary, to organize parents and teachers in the reform efforts. Small-schools-based reform is one of the key targets for the Gates foundation, and a LOT of what they give is in cash grants.
I think a lot of that money is ill-gotten gains on Gate's part, but his buisness duplicity doenst change the facts on his non-business charitable giving. Lets keep the facts straight, and attack where attack is due..
"That's my perspective of capitalism.
Please show me how wrong I am."
Capitalism, by leaving money in hands that turn some capital into even more capital, creates capital better than any other system ever invented.
It is a tool, not an all encompassing religion.
Socialism helps out the neediest, and is an asset to a society to maintain its "human capital".
Combining capitalism and socialism (bookstores AND libraries, public AND private schools, for profit AND not for profit organizations) works best.
That article will almost bring a tear to your eye..
When this article mentioned "motivation", I couldn't help but harken back to that old saw-horse of behavioral theory -- Maslow's Hierarchy of Need.
...
People work on Open Source because the gratification that comes as a result of their labor to produce robust, functional software will actually satisfy a "higher" need than material comfort and economic security (such as MS provides in salary). It's pretty hokey, when you boil it down -- but people want to do something useful with their energy and talent, something that appeals to our better nature.
While this _can_ be done while making a buck at the same time, it's just harder to balance. Plus -- not to sound like Newsweek, but -- with the ever-increasing impact of technology on society, it's reassuring to know that what we are building isn't strictly the result of the motiation towards commercial profit.
Restating the obvious, maybe
Post an article, any article portraying Linus in a positive light compared to Bill. In no time whatsoever will you have loads of MS fans defensively pointing out how many developers MS has, and thereby missing the point entirely.
I think more companies would adopt Open Source under the BSD model rather than the GPL model. I can't understand why a business like Tivo would run Linux and have to release code when they could have written it using BSD and not had to release anything.
I know everyone here is going to argue the OPENness of the Open Source movement but for me it doesn't make sense in a capitalist society.
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
"In the highly-publicised cases of "gifts" to Africa to fight diseases, the fine print informs us that these are actually loans a full market-price interest rates"
Please provide even a single reference to back up that statement. Note: if you think that the Guerrilla News article referenced elsewhere in this thread is your source... you misread it. In addition to containing misleading factual errors (i.e. the 6 billion donated by Gates represents closer to 10% of his net worth, not 2%), the article describes loans provided by the US Government, not by Gates or his foundation.
Nowhere does it say that the Gates Foundation's grants are anything other than precisely that - grants (not loans).
Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
Well, innovation was NEVER stifled. They tried to shut down CDC, but they failed, so it had no real effect.
I agree they used anticompetitory strategies. In fact, FUD was coined when making a campaign saying that IBM was developing an ultrapowerful machine, curing the problem that everyone was switching over to CDC's when the EXTREMELY innovative 6600 came out (Designed by Cray, btw). Before the also innovative 7600 came out, the market share had plummeted, but was restored during the trials.
BUT! Many of the world's computer innovation came from IBM: Data channels, Memory protection, and too many others to list at 03:51 AM.
Apolleoges forre splehing.
-Tore
Sig files? SIG FILES?? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' SIG FILES!!!
toresbe
because the opensource community, as much as we have those "RTFM FUCKING N00B" people, is still generally much warmer and more human than a cold heartless corporation that hides everything they do, and would kidnap your mother and sell her to slavery to get what they want. (not literally, but you know what I mean)
Torvalds is also a more human person, he seems to be friendly and more down to earth. whilst bill gates' mind is somewhere in the clouds with the mindset of he's more superior than god himself.
the real riches are human interest, and going by what people want, instead of telling people what they want and making software that attacks them and controls them.
I hav to laugh at the article because they treat opensource as if it were a business no one could see the soucre code of.
torvalds and millions of others have access to opensource.. bill ates does.. and we all know he uses it on occasion for certain things (some aspects of winXP act almost like kde, but I'm not sure which came first there on features)
but they also might be going by the legal reasoning that big businesses cant use and profit off of GPL like they can with the BSD license.
and I'm not going there since that'll start a huge war about licenses.
femto
But, what are we to expect from State-funded education, which spews such non-sense as the idea that prior to the government stealing radio waves from private owners, there was chaos in radio waves (there was no such thing, courts were enforcing property rights).
You demonstrate extreme stupidity by claiming that the government "created" currency. Currency is established voluntarily by individuals acting of their own free will. At first, there is barter. Then when an item is in enough demand, it is used as a medium for indirect exchange, rather than barter. This creates conveniency and allows for more precise transactions.
You are right about one thing: we need property rights for the free market to exist. The non-aggression axiom must be enforced. You are completely wrong about the necessity of a government for this funciton. All that government is is (ideally) is a monopoly on the enforcement of property rights; that monopoly is protected by coercive force. There is no reason to presume why the free market cannot supply protection for property rights and justice more effectively than the government, just as it provides everything else more effectively than the government. Furthermore, there is no reason to presume beforehand that a monopoly on law-enforcement is the ideal solution. See Rothbard:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp
Of course, government's are alot more than a monopoly on law enforcement. They also ahve a monopoly on things like theft, stealing, and murder. In other words, the goverment is a self-legitimized organization of criminals, with a monopoly on violence.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
"BTW, I don't fall for the argument of wonderfullness of altruism."
I think that attributing all work done on open source software to altruism is a mistake. Certainly there are many people working on open source projects because they want to contribute to the world, but most of the people that I know working on open source projects do so because they need to write software to get a job done, and it's more efficient for people with the same problem to write one common piece of software than each to write their own solution, and they don't want to get into the software business instead of the business that they're in. Why does IBM or SGI or Apple pay engineers to work on open source software? It's not altruism, it's a smart business decision -- Apple and IBM sell hardware that is vastly more valuable because of the open source software that runs on it.
My personal opinion is that ultimately the operating system market will resolve down to Microsoft, selling Windows, and every other computer company, collaboratively making open source operating systems (Linux, BSD, etc.) better. And the combined investment of IBM, Apple, HP, Sun, etc., combined with the efforts of the "grass roots developers" will continue to outpace Microsoft.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
While I must admit that I love all the open-sourced projects to improve on old commerical engines(Quake, Doom, etc.), their success seems limited at this point because of two key factors involved in a game's success:
1. Game content & design. This part is usually the tough one for an open-source game, since content has taken up a larger chunk of time for the developer year by year, and since people volunteering to make content want to make content they enjoy, there is a tremendous amount of friction involved from the start to find people who want to make what YOU want to make(hint: it's better to go the other way and make the team first, then discuss the game). In the case of modified engines, the use of old content holds back the game and intoduces lots of nagging compatibility issues.
2. Ease-of-use, ease-of-development. Since a game in open-source is make because a developer feels like it, he's probably going to stop as soon as he's satisfied, and because games are so varied, his work isn't guaranteed to be picked up like with other open-source projects - instead, you end up with hundreds upon hundreds of partially-done projects lying around. Of course, this isn't good enough for players - commercial games get to a finished, playable state, for the most part.
There is an intangible factor too: The game market is biased towards making sequels, as opposed to "version 2.0s." Truthfully, most game sequels(and remakes, etc.) really *are* version 2.0s, but the good ones change something enough(the story, some basic gameplay feature) so as to render it different, too, if only slightly.
I think the development paradigm will shift at some point, but not immediately.
"...alleged mediocrity of his product." You are speaking of Windows, right??? "Both men must find ways to motivate people to work together so knowledge can spread and have maximum impact on improving software quality." What a CROCK! Torvalds does not need to motivate people. If/when a problem creeps up, some/anyone fixes it. Then it lives/dies by peer review. "Torvalds has another advantage. His organization is less organized than Microsoft. It's really a disorganization." Torvalds does NOT have an organization. He realeased/releases code. ANYONE can do as they want with it (as per the GPL). "But Torvalds rightfully revels in not planning. He's counting on the marketplace's judgment of Linux and the wisdom of his disorganized organization as a better strategy." From what I've read, he's (Linus Torvalds) is not planning anything! He's amazed at what people are doing with what he made in '91. All he is really doing is creating new code (and some bug fixes as well). If the marketplace wants Linux, Torvalds has little to do with it. He prefers the GPL (as do we all), but I'm not sure he (or many amongst us) are counting on this "disorganized organization". I think a lot of us believe in GPL'd, Open Source software. This article was crap. Started as crap, finished as crap. But, what do I know?? I've been drinking beer for hours now.
Please stop. Free market does not mean that suddenly we stop enforcing all of our other laws. Stop talking about stealing, killing, etc. Your argument is so logically flawed it isn't even amusing. When someone mentions free market, that person doesn't throw out the idea of complete anarchy. Just stop typing.
IE was there to kill the internet not netscape.
If bill could not control or curb the internet's insane growth rate, the OS and the office software would fade out and in a way that crazy Oracle guy would be right...
The web is "dead". stuck around 1997. Just think how fast we moved from 93-97.. Now imagine what 5 more of those years would have led us to today?
XHTML3 and SVG2 with ECMAScript 3 and better java integration & speed perhaps?
MOST users would only need a brower, as it would in a way become a high-level OS of sorts in itself. Think about it. Gates sure did...(browser=os)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Replying to your own posts as an anonymous coward while pretending to be someone else is GAY GAY GAY!
>The process predictably goes on an on, until we
...BUT, at least read the freaking "Communist Manifesto" before you go tossing the word around so lightly.
have communism
No, it goes on until you have Stalinism, which, for the last goddamn time, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMUNISM!
Libertarians who haven't studied the history and theory of Communism should go buy a small plot in Vermont and live off jacked deer so we don't have to listen them.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not a Communist, nor do I think it has ever, or probably could ever work, as it has been formulated and practiced...
When an article shows obvious bias, you can pretty much ignore the entire thing. Just because an article is anti-ms doesn't make anything said about MS more truthful. The fact that the article is slanted at all make the entire thing a rubbish heap.
Secondly, I'm just plain right about security and permissions. It's what I do for a living, and what has put food on the table for nearly 3 decades now. Clearly it doesn't matter if I believe you. This isn't a belief issue. This is a knowing issue. You are claiming that windows file permissions are "more flexible" but give no definition of what flexible means in this case. In the real world, they are not more flexible because they are harder to implement and slower to modify. Flexibility implies usability. You can have all the features in the world, but a crappy interface to those features does not "more flexible" make.
Lastly, how feature rich does an NOS have to be? How many of those "features" were simply addons to justify incrementing the version another number so they could sell the same product again? Understand they are reinventing the wheel here yet again. These are all things that had existed prior to their attempt. Just because they redid the same thing that someone else had already done, used their own proprietary protocal, and kept adding "features" so they could continue milking money from their captive customers does not make it "better". I've noticed that you aren't attempting to say it's "better" just "more feature rich" so I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I just want to make sure you understand that "more feature rich" does not mean "better" or "more secure" or "more functional". It's simply a buzzword used to sell people something they probably don't need.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Some people will never get it...
Maybe MS is one of the best assets OSS has. Without the stronghold MS puts on software industry, would software creativity found his way thru OSS? Maybe if MS doesn't exist we should create one... just to keep things interesting.. :)
Modded Sigs cleans Karma
What's in a sig?
Hmm. On one hand, we have the people responsible for Linux, a nice, fast, loved system.
On the other hand, we have the man who is responsible for Java. You want a language that's a "business phenomenon" because of marketing and has plenty of technical flaws, look no further.
Joy is a bright and creative guy. If there's one thing I've learned from working with bright researchers, though, it's that doing a particular thing well doesn't make you right or even particularly well-informed or unbiased about other things. Joy likes building new things that tickle his fancy. Now he wants to throw out Java and make something new, and is pissed off because he can't because of compatibility contraints. He's already tired of Java. He got tired of Unix a long time ago. He's a nice guy to plop in a research lab and let lose. When he goes and makes blanket statements like the above, though, he speaks with little authority.
Joy doesn't like Linux because he currently in a fan of distributed computing systems. Linux is not as nice a distributed computing system as Joy's Java platform, so Linux is boring to him. The fact that general purpose distributed computing has failed to engender a hell of a lot of interest outside of the research community is no doubt a source of great irritation to many researchers, who find distributed computing a source of many facinating problems.
Joy is overlooking a number of interesting points. Joy's big accomplishments in the past have been design of huge systems -- not modules of systems. Linux is a fantastic system from a research perspective of wanting to try out new OS-level ideas. It's easy to extend and poke at Linux -- much, *much* nicer than poking at and extending Windows. Want to try a new filesystem approach? How about an idea in network scheduling? Linux makes a great research platform.
Linux is a great "product", a practical package. Joy doesn't care about something that's practically useful as long as it isn't technically new.
May we never see th
we believe the arrogant is you.
and what have you done? You act like you've written something more useful than Linux.
Linux will never really replace Unix. Its trickle up. Designed for the Desktop user with Cryrix and Athlon crap, and then scaled in a poor way to perform poorly on big hardware. Linux cannot be fixed to run well on real hardware. Maybe for a benchmark, but not generally. It will be a sad day to see what Linux has commodtized and its effect on the industry. It will become harder to motivate people to work for pennies to further screw themselves out of a job, this is what Linux does.
But the real work is done on real hardware with real operating environments. Joy knows this.
Have fun donating your time to something that is designed solely to screw MSFT out of marketshare and replace a profitable product with one that makes no one money. I have no qualms about the fuckingof MSFT, whats the joke here is its replacement isnt cheap, its free. And the programmers will feel the burn.
...it's mostly the mach microkernel with the BSD userland.
I am NaN
I don't think I would be ABLE to stop myself from buying a laser cannon.
My personal goal is sharks with Lasers on their heads. Is that so fricking hard?
No, I don't. But I believe the difference between the three that leads to Linus being less hated is this:
ESR makes claim about what you *do* believe in. This is really annoying, even when he is right.
RMS makes claims about what you *should* believe in. Lots of people hate that. Pesonally, I respect that he promote his values as universally true, even when I disagree with them.
Linus only makes claim about what *he himself* belive in, it is up to you whether your coals are compatible. Few people have a problem with that, RMS as an absolutist may be one of them.
Excuse me, I said East-India companies, plural. There was also the Dutch East-India company which had its own navy and was interestingly enough the first publically traded company in the world.
By the way, the now-common definition of communism includes what I was referring to.
Socialism would also apply.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
whhaaaaaaaaaa!!!
insolent cocktard...go hump that penguin, cap. useless
I think we can all understand that when someone refers to Gates benefiting from software, it implies a benefit to his ability to sell software. No one cares about Bill's software usage (unless it turned out he was a closet Linux user at home). Obviously, we're talking about selling, and that prevents him from using GPL.
BSD-style software has certainly been useful to him - how long did it take Hotmail to move to running on Microsoft products?
Certainly true, which is why I was atempting to discern what the original poster meant by "free." Because BSD software is the only free software Bill can legally benefit from (assuming, again, that we don't care what he uses at home)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
While some of the articles regarding MS might over-state their role in innovation and popularization, none of the articles contain blatently factual errors. They are addressing precisely the lines of evidence that dimwit liberals use to discredit the free market, and explaining why they do not do so, or are only half-truths.
If you actually have any specific points to make about any of the particular articles, you're welcomed to say them.
Of course, "factual evidence" can no more contradict economic truths than could observations contradict the statement that 2+2=4, or that if I like the taste of vanilla ice-cream I cannot at the same time dislike that taste. Nor can any obsservation contradict the fact that raising the minimum wage will eliminate jobs that would have existed otherwise. Simply put, reference to historical fact can neither prove nor disprove any economic statement; historical events can, however, be interpretted through various economic theories.
Correct economic theory states that there can be no such thing as "monopoly prices" on an unhampered free market. This is because corporations always face some form of competition. The only real monopolies that exist are those created by the coercive force of the State.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The idea of libertarianism is that once freedom -- the unhampered free market -- is established in a large enough area, it will be inherently resistant to Statist-invasions, either internally or externally.
Your entire argument is bullshit because it depends on the false assumption that State's were created voluntarily by individuals acting of their own free will. The State was no more created by individuals acting of their own free will than was slavery: it was created by a few men choosing to violently impose their will on others.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I posted the grandparent. Then I got to meta-mod you as unfunny. The broken Slashdot moderation system prevails!