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.
He has a world of developers. Bill has a company of developers.
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,
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.
...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.
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...
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.
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.
Most certainly, that is true. But I wonder if (and I'm just thinking out loud here) that's why much of Microsoft software is bloated and bug-ridden. Gates demends software does X and Y to expand feature but the coding and innovation required might be the code version of moving mountains. In the community open-source model, many features get coded because there is a community movement towards it as it works into the code slowly and incrementally. Just a thought...
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.
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?
-_-
1) Leave kids with Michael Jackson
2) ???
3) Profit!!!
In Soviet Russia, kids molest Michael Jackson!
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.
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.
-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.
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.
After some comments a week or so ago about Stallman not being a good public speaker, I decided to listen to his speeches and hear for myself. I admit that I too have had a sort of "get over yourself" attitude about him - but I'm realizing as I listen to what he has to say, that I developed this by listening to others who have that attitude, rather than listening to RMS. I won't say I don't have any of that attitude left, but I will say that I think he raises some very provacative issues in his speeches. When he talks about the history of the project, I can also understand why he desires some credit for his and his group's efforts. He did afterall, quit a nice cushy job on principle - I've never done that, I think most people haven't. I respect that "put your money where your mouth is" level of conviction.
Anyway, I don't know that I concurr with all he says, but I do have a lot more respect for him after listening to his talks for a few hours. And incidently, while he may not sparkle like a movie star, his presentations are good. And that is how it should be - they are informative works rather than works of entertainment.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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
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
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.
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.
please please pleade DO NOT FUCKING COMPARE WINDOW XP AND LINUX. i AM TELLING YOU IT IS UNCOMPARABLE. why? linux is a KERNEL! and winxp is a OS. you can compare with many different version of X like Kde, gnome and many other to winxp, not linux kernel. Linux kernel far surpass winxp's kernel in term of security, and other thing. so go fucking away and i am not trolling.
Bull.
I used to run Xwindows, etc. on a 66mhz 486. So your statement 'your hardware requirements go way beyond the 75mhz Pentium' is flat out *wrong*.
The reason people see it as unreasonable to run like that *now* is because hardware is faster, they're used to it operating faster. When it runs slower than they're used to, they see it as unacceptable.
That doesn't mean it won't work. It just means the expectations have been raised.
Code or be coded.
I think you may be confusing bloat for scalablity. You can run a small linux distro that does something very specific, or you can get a large linux distro that can do just about anything. Comparing the install footprint of a large linux distro to windows is inaccurate because comes with far more software then windows. If you want an accurate comparison take a basic windows install and add Office, IIS, MsSql, MSVisualStudio, and Photoshop.
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.
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.
Tell that to people paying electric and water bills that have gone through the roof in deregulated markets. Or people who live downwind of hog farms. Or people who drink water tainted by rusting computer parts.
The free market doesn't always produce the optimal outcome.
Education is the silver bullet.
Linus pays the people who contribute to the kernel, and GNU, and most other OSS projects by managing the kernel.
If I write a kernel patch that imroves speed by a factor of at least 2% on every CPU, and I submit it, I will benefit because every server that I access will be more responsive.
We can download at least 2% more pr0n on a daily basis. We all win!
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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'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)
There have been many projects based on the GPLed code of Quake 1, like Quake Tenebrae which adds graphical capabilities that surpass Quake 3 and are nearly on par with Doom 3.
It adds very nice lighting and texturing, but nothing more. The gameplay and modelling is still old and clunky.
:wq
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.
"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!
To understand how the free market solves the problem of pollution, where government regulation is a failure, see Rothbard's For a New Liberty
Unless you have an actual, working example, then this is not how the free market solves the problem, it's all theory. How does the free market deal with companies that pollute and then go out of business?
Or the libertarians' beloved property rights. Is there a square inch of land owned on earth that cannot trace ownership back to one guy with a big stick taking it from another?
Pollution is exactly that -- a tort.
So you want even more frickin' lawyers than we have now. Joy. The law does not guarantee fairness, just see O.J. Simpson on the golf course for an example of what money can buy.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>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...
It was funny, but it raises a serious point.
Even the freeloaders get something from Open Source, because taking stuff does not diminish the pot. It takes only relatively few contributors, or a few more people willing to give a little, to keep the pot growing.
I've contributed a little to the OSS movement (a bug fix to Audacity, some freely available code for AVR microcontrollers), and I am sure I will contribute some more in the future. But there's no way that, as an individual, I could have written a whole office suite, photo editor, web browser, HTML editor, C++ compiler, etc. etc.
But because what I take doesn't diminish the pot for everyone else, I can still see myself as a contributor rather than a leech.
This isn't a new viewpoint, but it's really the first time I've actually sat and thought about it in personal terms.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.