Slashdot Mirror


Open Source Spreads Beyond Software

B'Trey writes "Britain's Prospect Magazine is running an article entitled 'The Microsoft Killers.' The article covers the success of Open Source software in particular but also looks at how the methods and practices of Open Source are moving outside the software environment."

12 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. will this work... by freerecords · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..I think the idea is extremely novel! however, i don't think it will work simply because of the measurability of "good things". ie. in software we can always pick, and recommend, Mozilla over IE., not only cos it is open source, but because it is better security wise. however how do you tell someone that "OpenCoke" is better than Coca-cola, can this be done? if it tasted as good and didn't rot your teeth i guess so.. heh, but i dont think prices can be cut - and freeness is one of the big drawing factors to OS/GPL products... what do you think?
    by the way, i'm allergic to flames!
    Tim

    --
    tim
    1. Re:will this work... by UserGoogol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most religions are already as close to Open Source as you can get. (Except for "Mystery Religions" which keep the "source" of their religion secret. Scientology has even managed to copyright their religious texts.) You can take ideas from religions freely and to form your own religion. Just look at how many forks came out of the original Judaism project.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
  2. Microsoft Killers : Premature? by Puchku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A little premature for such a title maybe. F/OSS needs to concentrate on the details.. God is in the details, and this is where MIcrosoft excels. Sure, they have their shortcoming, but they Human Interface designs are uniform at least..

    1. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by Xpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure, they have their shortcoming, but they Human Interface designs are uniform at least..

      Ugly as heck, but uniform ;)

      Nowadays people love bashing OSS (and Linux especially) for being "inconsistant". They also enjoy pointing out that Linux's cryptic CLI scares away new users. Now I have to wonder, why did DOS and Windows 3.x become so popular? The command prompt to DOS was as cryptic as *nix, and in addition it was quite retarded as well. Win 3.x doesn't win any prizes for consistency either. Plug and play hardware was non-existant. Yet it was hugely popular, more so than the more user-friendly Macintosh. If people could put up with the crappiness of DOS and Win 3.x (the infancy of MS operating systems), why is Linux being bashed constantly during its infancy for stuff MS got away with?

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    2. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by qoquaq · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's your customer which defines the OS experience. If your customer is a new computer user ... the software should be intelligent enough to configure itself.

      If your user is an engineer ... mounting devices as drives is something the customer may know how to do so your software must be intelligent enough to do that well.

      Apple ... fault them if you must but ... they have such great attention to the user experience. Hide the bits in an abstraction known as Macintosh, their customer does not want to see drivers and mount points. This is their starting point, that is their customer. How can we delight the user with the Macintosh expeirence, not the low level details of the O1 scheduler. I don't mean to start a Mac/Linux/Windows holy war but I do need an example here .

      With Linux that starting point and customer are different. Most of the distributions which are ready for the desktop have a customer in mind who is using Windows 2000 at work or Windows ME at home. This is the user experience which they start with. I think some people here agree that is starting off a bit handicapped.

      The Mac customer does not even want to know what a driver is or does.

      The point I'm bearly making here is its about the customer ... and what experience you want for that customer. Will Linux overtake the desktop? ... Sure if the desktop really begins to abstract the fact you are running Linux and does a better job of creating the a great customer experience for more customers than everyone else.

      --

      "They say travel broadens the mind, so I went over the falls in a barrel." -Thomas Dolby

    3. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by wfberg · · Score: 4, Interesting


      A linux loving friend of mine who's not short on smarts (but perhaps a little behind on cluefulness when it comes to anyone but pure geeks) would say "It takes three seconds to mount the camera as a drive. duh". For Joe Average, finding out HOW to do that in 3 seconds can be 2 days of frustrated chasing information on how the OS works on a device level around the net.


      On the one hand, yes, this is a problem (for distributions that don't automount it right away) - this should be default on any distribution, and for non-USB-mass-storage cameras, gphoto should be included in an obvious way, if only a link to the installer in some sort of control panel's "digital camera options" section.

      On the other hand; linux is now better at detecting hardware, and having the pertinent drivers installed out-of-the-box than windows is, except for the most proprietary of hardware. For example, my FujiFilm S304 required extra "USB Mass Storage" drivers to be installed, even though USB Mass Storage is pretty much a standard. My non-standard archos jukebox requires drivers to be installed on every windows box I want to hook it up to. Again, linux recognized its fairly oddball chipset out of the box, and I the only thing I had to do is mount it (the machine I tried it on doesn't have no steeking gui installed, so no biggy ;-))

      And the number of times I wished windows had a /proc/pci list just this week (yes, there are multiple pci listing tools on the web, but they usually do not work, and in interesting ways..)

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    4. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by micromoog · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I would have been dual-booting Linux for years, but my very simple request for a bugfix in the Ultra-66 driver was ignored by the kernel developers (as in, no response after multiple attempts to contact them). The fix would have involved adding one line to an already-existing list of quirky drives, impacting only drives of my exact type with my exact IDE chipset.

      I tested the fix myself, then submitted it to the owner of IDE individually multiple times, then to the proper list. Not so much as a response from anyone.

      Yes, I can install Linux with the Ultra-66 DMA disabled, edit the source file (/drivers/ide/pdc202xx_new.h), recompile and reinstall the kernel, enable DMA again in the hardware, and reboot.

      Am I willing to do this every time I want to update my system to newer kernel code? No.

      If the system doesn't work because the people who control the kernel are unwilling to even answer their email, then I'll just use an operating system that does support my hardware.

  3. Open Source impossible for capital intensive apps by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would suspect that Open Source is limited to particular categories of work. Labor intensive, but not capital intensive, activities are ideal for open source. With capital intensive endevours, the people that own the money want to own the output. Fortunatly, the captial required for many activities is dropping. With the low cost and ubiquity of technlogy, many formly expensive activities can be done by amateurs on an open source basis (software, indie films, encyclopedias/wikis, helpdesk/help forums, etc.).

    For bigger open source projects, the problem is monetization -- converting the fruits of open source into money that goes to pay the burgeoning and unavoidable expenses of a large project. The free-software, expensive service model (RedHat) or free software, expensive hardware & service model (IBM) seems popular.

    But there are limits. I doubt we will ever see open source retail stores, hardware factories, or apartment buildings (except on an unusual donation basis). Probably the only capital-intensive forms of "open source" is university science -- the scientists provide the labor, release there findngs to the public, and the government provides the money for the equipment (even here, university IP people try to own the fruits of the academic labors).

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  4. Open Music. by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Open Music anyone?

    My only concern is, is it free for the idea of freedom or because nobody would pay for it anyway? ;)

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  5. Excellence takes time.... by LibrePensador · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As you recognized towards the end of your post, the small details are being addressed at many levels. Stay tuned for a Linux distribution near you.

    In fact, your specific example has been dealt with by Mandrake and Suse for the past 2/3 years. Where have you been?

    And how do they do it? Better than Windows, most times.

    No driver CD necessary. If it's supported, plug in the camera and it shows up on your desktop. Click on it and get your pictures. Now that was easy, wasn't it.

    I am not impervious to criticism and there are tons of things that need improvement, but they are coming. Anyone who has used Linux for the past five years cannot be blind to the huge improvements in ease-of-use and consistency that have been made.

    Finally, the community aspect of Linux is not to be dismissed. When I set somebody up with Linux, I make sure that his/her every whim is satisfied so that the experience is more positive than it was with their prior OS.

    --
    Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
  6. Groklaw is a non-programming example of this by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "Open source is a philosophy for software licensing designed to encourage the improvement and use of software by anyone who wants to join in. It ensures that the source code, the underlying instructions of the software, can be examined and modified freely.

    The open source movement eschews proprietary controls and its software is usually produced not by firms, but by networks of volunteers who look after different pieces of an application."

    Groklaw is an example of this exact method, even though it is not involved in software development. It is a legal site that encourages anyone to join in, the results are not produced by law firms, but by networks of volunteers who look after different pieces of the legal brief. It started as one woman's personal blog and then took off when the FOSS community saw the usefulness of having a subject matter expert in law commenting on cases that mattered to the community. So the community joined in and now it's a distributed project on the exact model of an Open Source programming project.

    So these principles work for more than just programming. It's a useful model for any community project. The power of the community made manifest. We're stronger when we work together.

  7. Ecosystems by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it's very appropriate to compare the universe of software development, or even business to an ecosystem.

    I spent years in the environmental world, and to this day every time I walk in the woods I see examples of cutthroat competition and stunning examples of cooperation. I think the rise of free software/open source in a sense mirrors this property of complex systems of individual agents to have cooperation emerge as a major form of interaction. It is a restoring of a natural equillibrium that was disrupted by a decade or so of exponential growth. Closed operating systems and software that performs other, nearly universal functions are like weeds that prosper by being able to use the resources freed by the disruption to colonize new niches. Cooperative models can't self assemble quickly enough at first to compete.

    In the long term the equillibrium will swing the other way, although not totally because cooperation is not a natural model in many situations. For example in vertical markets, the disincentives of cooperations outweigh the benefits. In that case internally developed systems make sense, and closed "black box" COT software is an acceptible compromise which maintains at least a level playing field.

    I think cooperative models of production will always exist as long as the contract doesn't become the sole form of human relationship. But it will always coexist with competition as a pardigm. Speculation: as long as world population grows exponentially, and the world economy grows exponentially with it, competition will remain the dominant form of human economic interaction. It's interesting to speculate what will happen if world population stabilizes and growth switches from exponential to linear growth or steady state.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.